Roman Safiullin vs Sumit Nagal — Koblenz CH Round of 64

Koblenz CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
Roman Safiullin
RUS
Roman Safiullin
#96ATP
1750ELO
1704Hard ELO
$199kYTD
$4.3MCAREER
28 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 14 January 2019
hard
Sumit Nagal
IND
Sumit Nagal
#241ATP
1543ELO
1476Hard ELO
28 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWLLLL
Safiullin R.
6-2 6-1
Nagal S.
Safiullin R.
662
Nagal S.
210

Roman Safiullin defeated Sumit Nagal 6-2 6-1 in the Koblenz CH round of 64 on hard. The result followed the form book — Roman Safiullin came in ranked #96.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Safiullin R.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Nagal S.

Nagal S.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Safiullin R.

Even serve battle

Each player's serve crossed against the other's return, converted to expected hold of serve. Recent completed matches, ATP, WTA & Challenger. About

Statistics

This season
Safiullin R.Nagal S.
1st serve in·Slight edge
63%
70%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
64%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
51%
Service points won·Slight edge
65%
60%
Return points won·Even
38%
42%
Break points saved·Even
62%
58%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.4
1.5
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.2
1.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Safiullin R.Nagal S.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
68
33
Break points saved·Dominant
96
69
Break points won·Slight edge
44
35
Deciding sets·Dominant
76
16
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
78
84

Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About

Freshness

Recent load
Safiullin R.Nagal S.
Freshness·Clear edge
84
96

Safiullin R.: 9 days rest · 3 matches (14d) · Nagal S.: 8 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Mager G.
Ortega Olmedo R.
2-67-666-2
Semi-finals
Ortega Olmedo R.
Kotov P.
7-53-66-3
Mager G.
Griekspoor T.[14]
6-32-66-4
Quarter-finals
Mager G.
Vatutin A.[3]
7-54-2
Griekspoor T.[14]
Uchida K.
6-37-5
Ortega Olmedo R.
Ymer M.[7]
6-786-16-3
Kotov P.
Taberner C.
5-77-56-1
R16
Vatutin A.[3]
Ignatik U.[16]
6-46-767-66
Griekspoor T.[14]
Ruud C.[1]
3-66-16-2
Uchida K.
Pavlasek A.[9]
6-23-67-63
Taberner C.
De Schepper K.[12]
7-656-2
Ortega Olmedo R.
Maden Y.[2]
6-43-66-3
Ymer M.[7]
Safiullin R.
6-25-76-4
Kotov P.
De Bakker T.[15]
6-27-63
Mager G.
Horansky F.[11]
7-646-3
R32
De Schepper K.[12]
Hernandez J.
6-26-1
Pavlasek A.[9]
Wang T.
3-66-36-4
Ignatik U.[16]
Torebko P.
7-656-3
Maden Y.[2]
Bonadio R.
6-26-2
Uchida K.
De Greef A.[8]
7-606-4
Mager G.
Ward J.[6]
2-66-46-4
Ymer M.[7]
Piros Z.
4-67-606-2
Ortega Olmedo R.
Kolar Z.[13]
6-26-4
Safiullin R.
Kamke T.[10]
6-06-746-3
Kotov P.
Arnaboldi A.[4]
6-47-5
De Bakker T.[15]
Hassan B.
6-16-4
Taberner C.
Brands D.[5]
7-627-5
Horansky F.[11]
Haerteis J.
7-6136-4
Vatutin A.[3]
Oliveira G.
3-67-676-2
Griekspoor T.[14]
Przysiezny M.
6-02-66-3
Ruud C.[1]
Brancaccio R.
6-44-66-3
R64
Hassan B.
Serdarusic N.
6-46-2
Kotov P.
Grigelis L.
7-666-3
Bonadio R.
Marcora R.
6-46-2
Hernandez J.
Karlovskiy E.
7-674-67-5
Ortega Olmedo R.
Gengel M.
7-616-3
Oliveira G.
Presuhn B.
6-26-2
Safiullin R.
Nagal S.
6-26-1
Piros Z.
Griekspoor S.
4-66-06-2
Taberner C.
Lenz J.
6-45-76-2
Mager G.
Heller P.
6-46-4
Haerteis J.
Safranek V.
7-634-66-3
Torebko P.
Lemstra K.
6-11-66-1
Uchida K.
Zapata Miralles B.
0-66-27-5
Wang T.
Masur D.
6-46-2
Przysiezny M.
Barranco Cosano J.
4-66-36-2
Brancaccio R.
Wessels L.
6-47-5