Cem Ilkel vs Max Purcell — Gwangju CH Round of 32

Gwangju CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Cem Ilkel
TUR
Cem Ilkel
#1462ATP
30 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 13 May 2019
hard
AUS11
Max Purcell
28 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLWW
Ilkel C.
6-1 6-7 7-5
Purcell M.
Ilkel C.
66172
Purcell M.
17751

Cem Ilkel defeated Max Purcell 6-1 6-7 7-5 in the Gwangju CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Cem Ilkel came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Cem Ilkel extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Cem Ilkel came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 6–1 6–7 7–5.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-11-06SofiaR16hardCem Ilkel6-3 4-6 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Ilkel C.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Purcell M.

Purcell M.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Ilkel C.

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
Ilkel C.Purcell M.
1st serve in·Even
58%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
62%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
57%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
4.7
7.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.5
1.9

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Ilkel C.Purcell M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
32
59
Break points saved·Dominant
49
92
Break points won·Slight edge
3
10
Deciding sets·Clear edge
70
84
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
66
81

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

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Jung J.[5]
Sela D.[12]
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Sela D.[12]
Kwon S.[6]
6-47-5
Jung J.[5]
Santillan A.
6-46-3
Quarter-finals
Jung J.[5]
Li Z.[13]
3-66-16-4
Kwon S.[6]
Wu T.
6-16-0
Sela D.[12]
Donskoy E.[4]
7-646-2
Santillan A.
Lacko L.[7]
6-46-3
R16
Lacko L.[7]
Ilkel C.
2-64-0
Santillan A.
Schnur B.[3]
6-33-0
Kwon S.[6]
Sugita Y.[10]
6-46-756-4
Wu T.
Stakhovsky S.[2]
6-46-3
Donskoy E.[4]
Chung Y.
7-56-4
Sela D.[12]
Kravchuk K.
6-16-1
Jung J.[5]
Bemelmans R.[9]
6-27-5
Li Z.[13]
Mukund S.
7-57-64
R32
Chung Y.
Lee D.[15]
6-46-2
Kravchuk K.
Ito T.[8]
6-32-1
Stakhovsky S.[2]
Yang T.
6-47-63
Mukund S.
Takahashi Y.
6-16-4
Sugita Y.[10]
Nam J.
6-26-2
Donskoy E.[4]
Ochi M.
6-36-4
Sela D.[12]
Smith R.
6-06-2
Lacko L.[7]
Bai Y.
7-666-4
Ilkel C.
Purcell M.[11]
6-16-717-5
Santillan A.
Myneni S.[16]
6-26-1
Schnur B.[3]
Saville L.
6-26-736-2
Jung J.[5]
Song M.
6-36-2
Bemelmans R.[9]
Peliwo F.
7-646-2
Li Z.[13]
Imai S.
6-36-1
Wu T.
Uchida K.[14]
6-16-4
Kwon S.[6]
Broady L.
6-27-62
R64
Song M.
Song E.
6-36-4
Bai Y.
Son J.
7-652-66-3
Smith R.
Wu D.
6-26-4
Santillan A.
Kim C.
6-46-1
Imai S.
Banes M.
3-66-46-2
Yang T.
Na J.
6-37-68
Broady L.
King E.
7-56-3
Chung Y.
Lee J.
7-656-2
Saville L.
Neuchrist M.
6-716-27-62
Mukund S.
Setkic A.
6-16-3
Wu T.
Zhang Z.
6-36-3
Nam J.
Noguchi R.
6-26-1
Ochi M.
Hsieh C.
4-67-56-3
Kravchuk K.
Hong S.
3-67-636-2
Ilkel C.
King K.
7-56-2
Peliwo F.
Xia Z.
6-46-4