Camilo Ugo Carabelli vs Mauricio Echazu — Lima CH Round of 64

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#58ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 21 October 2019
clay
Mauricio Echazu
PER
Mauricio Echazu
#1884ATP
37 yrs · 174 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWLLWLL
Ugo Carabelli C.
6-2 6-2
Echazu M.
Ugo Carabelli C.
662
Echazu M.
220

Camilo Ugo Carabelli defeated Mauricio Echazu 6-2 6-2 in the Lima CH round of 64 on clay. The result followed the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #58.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Echazu M.

Echazu M.serving55% hold

wins 52% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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

Serve & return on clay

Ugo Carabelli C.Echazu M.
24
Serve
—
36
Return
—

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the clay field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.Echazu M.
1st serve in·Clear edge
62%
76%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
67%
60%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
49%
40%
Service points won·Slight edge
60%
55%
Return points won·Even
41%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
53%
Aces / match·Clear edge
2.7
0.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.4
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 7). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Freshness

Recent load
Ugo Carabelli C.Echazu M.
Freshness·Even
98
97

Ugo Carabelli C.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Echazu M.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Monteiro T.[3]
Coria F.[7]
6-26-776-4
Semi-finals
Coria F.[7]
Bagnis F.[8]
7-55-76-0
Monteiro T.[3]
Varillas J.[10]
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Bagnis F.[8]
Galan D.
6-46-2
Varillas J.[10]
Seyboth Wild T.
7-57-5
Coria F.[7]
Menezes J.[15]
6-43-66-3
Monteiro T.[3]
Ficovich J.
7-56-3
R16
Galan D.
Ugo Carabelli C.
6-37-5
Monteiro T.[3]
Hanfmann Y.[13]
1-66-37-5
Varillas J.[10]
Luz O.
7-637-65
Bagnis F.[8]
Matos R.
6-36-2
Menezes J.[15]
Mayer L.[2]
6-41-66-4
Coria F.[7]
Vilella Martinez M.[11]
6-26-1
Ficovich J.
Etcheverry T.
6-26-4
Seyboth Wild T.
Collarini A.[16]
6-16-766-1
R32
Menezes J.[15]
Krstin P.
4-66-13-0
Matos R.
Giustino L.[9]
6-35-2
Monteiro T.[3]
Cuevas M.
6-37-64
Ficovich J.
Sousa P.[5]
6-46-2
Galan D.
Mena F.[14]
6-16-4
Mayer L.[2]
Cervantes Huegun I.
6-26-3
Vilella Martinez M.[11]
Sakamoto P.
4-66-37-63
Coria F.[7]
Cerundolo F.
7-56-4
Ugo Carabelli C.
Martin A.[4]
6-37-65
Etcheverry T.
Domingues J.[12]
6-36-2
Hanfmann Y.[13]
Gutierrez O.
6-36-3
Luz O.
Nagal S.[6]
6-16-4
Varillas J.[10]
Clezar G.
7-56-2
Collarini A.[16]
Quiroz R.
6-46-3
Seyboth Wild T.
Cecchinato M.[1]
7-646-4
Bagnis F.[8]
Gonzalez A.
6-36-3
R64
Quiroz R.
Chazal M.
6-36-4
Sakamoto P.
Hernandez J.
7-56-756-0
Matos R.
Huertas Del Pino C.
6-46-1
Gutierrez O.
Alvarez N.
6-36-3
Cervantes Huegun I.
Meligeni Alves F.
4-66-36-4
Krstin P.
Villanueva G.
6-36-0
Cerundolo F.
Blanch U.
6-26-2
Ugo Carabelli C.
Echazu M.
6-26-2
Ficovich J.
Velotti A.
7-56-3
Etcheverry T.
Huertas Del Pino A.
6-26-3
Cuevas M.
Olivo R.
6-36-4
Clezar G.
Panta Herreros J.
6-26-3
Seyboth Wild T.
Roca Batalla O.
6-46-3
Gonzalez A.
Iamachkine P.
5-77-646-2
Luz O.
Lindell C.
6-26-4
Galan D.
Hidalgo D.
6-33-67-67