Elias Ymer vs Lukas Rosol — Phoenix CH Round of 64

Phoenix CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
Elias Ymer
SWE
Elias Ymer
#183ATP
1548ELO
1527Hard ELO
$191kYTD
$2.4MCAREER
30 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWWLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 11 March 2019
hard
CZE
Lukas Rosol
40 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLLLLLLLL
Ymer E.
6-3 6-4
Rosol L.
Ymer E.
662
Rosol L.
340

Elias Ymer defeated Lukas Rosol 6-3 6-4 in the Phoenix CH round of 64 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Lukas Rosol came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Elias Ymer claimed a first win over Lukas Rosol in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

  • Match story: Elias Ymer closed it out in two sets, 6–3 6–4.

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2015-05-24Roland GarrosR128clayLukas Rosol6-2 7-6(7) 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Ymer E.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Rosol L.

Rosol L.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Ymer E.

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
Ymer E.Rosol L.
1st serve in·Even
60%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
62%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Even
58%
60%
Aces / match·Even
4.7
4.6
Double faults / match·Even
3.1
3.3

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Ymer E.Rosol L.
Clutch Rating·Even
48
51
Break points saved·Slight edge
83
89
Break points won·Clear edge
23
3
Deciding sets·Even
78
78
Tiebreaks·Dominant
35
72

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

Freshness

Recent load
Ymer E.Rosol L.
Freshness·
100
—

Ymer E.: 20 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Berrettini M.[6]
Kukushkin M.[4]
3-67-667-62
Semi-finals
Kukushkin M.[4]
Caruso S.
6-17-5
Berrettini M.[6]
Andreozzi G.[12]
7-636-1
Quarter-finals
Berrettini M.[6]
Sonego L.
6-46-4
Andreozzi G.[12]
Millman J.[3]
6-34-66-3
Kukushkin M.[4]
Jarry N.[11]
6-47-5
Caruso S.
Goffin D.[1]
2-66-36-2
R16
Goffin D.[1]
Ruud C.[15]
7-647-64
Berrettini M.[6]
Gojowczyk P.[10]
6-37-5
Andreozzi G.[12]
Ito T.
6-23-66-4
Sonego L.
Harrison R.
6-46-2
Millman J.[3]
Majchrzak K.
6-16-2
Jarry N.[11]
Daniel T.[8]
4-66-16-4
Kukushkin M.[4]
Ivashka I.[16]
6-27-65
Caruso S.
Donskoy E.
6-36-4
R32
Ivashka I.[16]
Gerasimov E.
6-44-66-2
Jarry N.[11]
Polansky P.
6-15-76-4
Caruso S.
Kellovsky D.
4-67-626-2
Gojowczyk P.[10]
Krstin P.
6-46-4
Sonego L.
Chardy J.[2]
3-66-37-5
Harrison R.
Harris L.[14]
3-66-46-4
Berrettini M.[6]
Kovalik J.
6-16-1
Millman J.[3]
Lacko L.
6-776-47-64
Majchrzak K.
Martin F.
7-57-5
Andreozzi G.[12]
Arnaboldi A.
6-766-36-1
Ito T.
Ebden M.[5]
3-66-47-67
Daniel T.[8]
Evans D.
6-46-2
Kukushkin M.[4]
Tseng C.
7-56-3
Donskoy E.
Gulbis E.[9]
6-37-66
Ruud C.[15]
Ymer E.
1-66-36-3
Goffin D.[1]
Carballes Baena R.
6-16-4
R64
Ymer E.
Rosol L.
6-36-4
Lacko L.
Uchiyama Y.
5-76-46-2
Harrison R.
Quinzi G.
6-32-2
Kovalik J.
Istomin D.
6-32-1
Gerasimov E.
Popyrin A.
6-13-0
Carballes Baena R.
Vanni L.
6-37-66
Ito T.
Ponwith N.
6-46-4
Krstin P.
Ramanathan R.
6-26-4
Sonego L.
Kuhn N.
6-36-2
Majchrzak K.
Ymer M.
7-636-3
Arnaboldi A.
Laaksonen H.
6-16-3
Evans D.
Escobedo E.
6-46-1
Polansky P.
Nielsen F.
7-676-3
Tseng C.
Jung J.
3-66-36-2
Caruso S.
Krueger M.
6-16-2
Donskoy E.
Bemelmans R.
6-36-3