Ulises Blanch vs Sumit Nagal — Rome CH Round of 64

Rome CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
USA
Ulises Blanch
#1661ATP
28 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 6 May 2019
clay
Sumit Nagal
IND
Sumit Nagal
#241ATP
1543ELO
1538Clay ELO
28 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWWWWWLLL
Blanch U.
6-2 7-5
Nagal S.
Blanch U.
672
Nagal S.
250

Ulises Blanch defeated Sumit Nagal 6-2 7-5 in the Rome CH round of 64 on clay.

Key context

  • Match story: Ulises Blanch closed it out in two sets, 6–2 7–5.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Blanch U.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Nagal S.

Nagal S.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Blanch U.

Serve advantage — Nagal S.

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
Blanch U.Nagal S.
1st serve in·Clear edge
58%
70%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
74%
64%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
60%
Return points won·Slight edge
35%
42%
Break points saved·Even
62%
58%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.9
1.5
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.5
1.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Blanch U.Nagal S.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
19
33
Break points saved·Clear edge
83
69
Break points won·Dominant
2
35
Deciding sets·Even
19
16
Tiebreaks·Dominant
37
84

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

Freshness

Recent load
Blanch U.Nagal S.
Freshness·
—
96

Nagal S.: 8 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Laaksonen H.[4]
Moroni G.[17]
6-727-626-2
Semi-finals
Laaksonen H.[4]
Lorenzi P.[2]
7-656-756-1
Moroni G.[17]
Pavlasek A.[14]
6-16-1
Quarter-finals
Moroni G.[17]
Horansky F.[9]
6-41-0
Lorenzi P.[2]
Napolitano S.[10]
6-36-2
Laaksonen H.[4]
Caruso S.[8]
6-46-4
Pavlasek A.[14]
Majchrzak K.[5]
6-37-62
R16
Moroni G.[17]
Valkusz M.
6-5
Lorenzi P.[2]
Gaio F.[13]
6-16-4
Laaksonen H.[4]
Viola M.[16]
6-46-3
Caruso S.[8]
Galovic V.[12]
6-36-4
Horansky F.[9]
Otte O.[7]
6-47-65
Pavlasek A.[14]
Bonadio R.
6-36-1
Napolitano S.[10]
Kovalik J.[6]
7-633-67-5
Majchrzak K.[5]
Marcora R.[11]
6-37-62
R32
Bonadio R.
Marterer M.[1]
1-66-30-0
Marcora R.[11]
Casanova H.
6-21-66-2
Horansky F.[9]
Safranek V.
6-34-66-3
Majchrzak K.[5]
Kivattsev K.
6-37-66
Lorenzi P.[2]
Sakamoto P.
6-22-66-1
Gaio F.[13]
Boluda Purkiss C.
6-46-4
Napolitano S.[10]
Haerteis J.
6-26-3
Kovalik J.[6]
Iannaccone F.
6-06-2
Laaksonen H.[4]
Heller P.
6-26-1
Viola M.[16]
Olivo R.
6-37-5
Galovic V.[12]
Collarini A.
3-66-46-4
Otte O.[7]
Ficovich J.
7-636-2
Valkusz M.
Balazs A.[15]
6-46-3
Moroni G.[17]
Blanch U.
6-26-3
Pavlasek A.[14]
Brkic T.
3-66-36-2
Caruso S.[8]
Bega A.
6-46-1
R64
Olivo R.
Wang T.
7-664-1
Bega A.
Torebko P.
4-67-51-0
Kivattsev K.
Maggioli E.
6-26-3
Boluda Purkiss C.
Ornago F.
6-746-46-1
Haerteis J.
Mansouri S.
7-636-767-5
Iannaccone F.
Molcan A.
6-746-36-4
Heller P.
Jacq G.
6-36-3
Collarini A.
Pavic A.
6-46-4
Safranek V.
Margaroli L.
2-66-36-4
Valkusz M.
Ocleppo J.
6-26-2
Blanch U.
Nagal S.
6-27-5
Casanova H.
Petrovic D.
6-44-66-2
Brkic T.
Turchetti N.
6-26-2
Bonadio R.
Passaro F.
6-36-3
Sakamoto P.
Dima D.
6-27-5
Ficovich J.
Klein B.
6-26-2