Brandon Nakashima vs Strong Kirchheimer — Champaign-Urbana CH Round of 64

Champaign-Urbana CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 64
Brandon Nakashima
USA
Brandon Nakashima
#32ATP
1839ELO
1788Hard ELO
$990kYTD
$7.9MCAREER
24 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 11 November 2019
hard
Strong Kirchheimer
USA
Strong Kirchheimer
#660ATP
31 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLLWWLWLL
Nakashima B.
6-3 6-7 6-1
Kirchheimer S.
Nakashima B.
66462
Kirchheimer S.
37711

Brandon Nakashima defeated Strong Kirchheimer 6-3 6-7 6-1 in the Champaign-Urbana CH round of 64 on hard. The result followed the form book — Brandon Nakashima came in ranked #32.

Key context

  • Match story: Brandon Nakashima came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 6–3 6–7 6–1.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nakashima B.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Kirchheimer S.

Kirchheimer S.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Nakashima B.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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 hard

Nakashima B.Kirchheimer S.
61
Serve
—
23
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Nakashima B.Kirchheimer S.
1st serve in·Even
66%
64%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
75%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
68%
62%
Return points won·Even
35%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
66%
61%
Aces / match·Dominant
8.5
4.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.2
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 197). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nakashima B.Kirchheimer S.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
56
6
Break points saved·Dominant
99
63
Break points won·Clear edge
13
0
Deciding sets·Dominant
64
9
Tiebreaks·Dominant
89
31

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

Freshness

Recent load
Nakashima B.Kirchheimer S.
Freshness·Clear edge
90
78

Nakashima B.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d) · Kirchheimer S.: 1 day rest · 2 matches, 39 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Wolf J.[9]
Korda S.[14]
6-46-737-66
Semi-finals
Korda S.[14]
Brown A.
6-26-2
Wolf J.[9]
Kavcic B.
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Wolf J.[9]
Kozlov S.
6-26-2
Kavcic B.
Smith K.
7-636-3
Brown A.
Ficovich J.[8]
7-56-3
Korda S.[14]
Redlicki M.
6-24-67-64
R16
Korda S.[14]
Gomez E.[3]
4-66-46-3
Brown A.
Aragone J.[13]
7-656-3
Ficovich J.[8]
Cid R.[10]
6-47-66
Redlicki M.
Corwin F.
6-47-5
Smith K.
Torpegaard M.[4]
6-06-3
Wolf J.[9]
Eubanks C.[6]
7-54-66-4
Kozlov S.
Song E.
6-44-66-1
Kavcic B.
Glasspool L.
7-57-65
R32
Cid R.[10]
Roelofse R.
5-76-36-3
Redlicki M.
Polansky P.[5]
4-66-16-4
Korda S.[14]
Sigouin B.
6-16-3
Smith K.
Smith R.[16]
3-66-37-63
Brown A.
Rola B.[2]
6-766-36-4
Aragone J.[13]
Sels J.
6-23-66-3
Ficovich J.[8]
Kovacevic A.
7-666-1
Gomez E.[3]
Gerch L.
6-46-756-2
Corwin F.
Peliwo F.[12]
6-36-4
Kavcic B.
Cerundolo F.[7]
6-26-0
Glasspool L.
Uchida K.[11]
7-57-65
Torpegaard M.[4]
Svajda Z.
6-16-2
Eubanks C.[6]
Nakashima B.
6-47-65
Wolf J.[9]
Altmaier D.
6-27-63
Song E.
King K.[15]
6-47-63
Kozlov S.
Kudla D.[1]
6-36-3
R64
Smith K.
Pena Lopez M.
6-26-1
Sels J.
Avidzba A.
6-36-1
Svajda Z.
Hardt N.
6-06-1
Glasspool L.
Geerts M.
3-66-36-2
Gerch L.
Brouwer G.
7-646-2
Brown A.
Valkusz M.
7-56-4
Roelofse R.
Rapp A.
7-646-3
Kovacevic A.
Hoyt E.
6-46-2
Sigouin B.
Pervolarakis M.
3-66-36-2
Corwin F.
Mejia N.
4-66-46-1
Redlicki M.
Clark E.
6-36-2
Kavcic B.
Peniston R.
6-46-3
Nakashima B.
Kirchheimer S.
6-36-746-1
Altmaier D.
Leite W.
6-07-5
Song E.
Blumberg W.
6-47-5
Kozlov S.
Carr S.
6-24-67-64