Martin Cuevas vs Renzo Olivo — Lima CH Round of 64

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
URU
Martin Cuevas
34 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLLWLLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 21 October 2019
clay
Renzo Olivo
ARG
Renzo Olivo
34 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLL
Cuevas M.
6-3 6-4
Olivo R.
Cuevas M.
662
Olivo R.
340

Martin Cuevas defeated Renzo Olivo 6-3 6-4 in the Lima CH round of 64 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Renzo Olivo came in defending last year's round of 32, but Martin Cuevas had been the form player, winning 3 of their last 9 on clay.

Key context

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

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Cuevas M.serving61% hold

wins 55% of points on serve vs Olivo R.

Olivo R.serving66% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Cuevas M.

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

Statistics

This season
Cuevas M.Olivo R.
1st serve in·Slight edge
54%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
71%
64%
2nd serve points won·Even
46%
46%
Service points won·Even
59%
58%
Return points won·Even
38%
41%
Break points saved·Even
58%
56%
Aces / match·Dominant
5.4
1.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
4.5
3.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (84 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Cuevas M.Olivo R.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
14
8
Break points saved·Even
35
33
Break points won·Slight edge
22
15
Deciding sets·Slight edge
20
27
Tiebreaks·Dominant
71
41

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