Noah Rubin vs Lucas Pouille — Indian Wells CH Round of 32

Indian Wells CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
USA
Noah Rubin
30 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 March 2020
hard
FRA2
Lucas Pouille
32 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWLLLLW
Rubin N.
6-4 7-6
Pouille L.
Rubin N.
6772
Pouille L.
4650

Noah Rubin defeated Lucas Pouille 6-4 7-6 in the Indian Wells CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Lucas Pouille came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Noah Rubin claimed a first win over Lucas Pouille in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2021-08-23Winston-SalemQ2hardLucas Pouille4-6 7-6(5) 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Rubin N.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Pouille L.

Pouille L.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Rubin N.

Serve advantage — Pouille L.

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
Rubin N.Pouille L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
56%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
51%
Service points won·Even
60%
63%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
66%
Aces / match·Clear edge
3.9
6.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
3.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (48 vs 159). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rubin N.Pouille L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
49
74
Break points saved·Clear edge
80
98
Break points won·Even
31
29
Deciding sets·Dominant
54
96
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
80
94

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
Johnson S.[5]
Sock J.
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Johnson S.[5]
Krueger M.
6-46-4
Sock J.
Nakashima B.
6-756-36-4
Quarter-finals
Johnson S.[5]
Rubin N.
6-36-3
Krueger M.
Barrere G.[9]
6-47-65
Nakashima B.
Giron M.[14]
7-623-66-2
Sock J.
Kudla D.[11]
7-655-76-4
R16
Krueger M.
Korda S.
6-26-1
Barrere G.[9]
Tiafoe F.[8]
4-66-27-64
Nakashima B.
Caruso S.[10]
6-46-3
Kudla D.[11]
Sinner J.[6]
6-36-746-2
Sock J.
Donskoy E.[13]
6-44-67-63
Johnson S.[5]
Daniel T.[12]
7-636-2
Rubin N.
Sarmiento R.
6-36-1
Giron M.[14]
Marcora R.
7-646-1
R32
Rubin N.
Pouille L.[2]
6-47-65
Daniel T.[12]
Mcdonald M.
7-57-66
Johnson S.[5]
Polmans M.
6-13-66-2
Krueger M.
Albot R.[4]
0-66-46-4
Barrere G.[9]
Zverev M.
6-33-67-5
Nakashima B.
Sugita Y.[7]
6-36-2
Caruso S.[10]
Kwiatkowski T.
6-46-2
Giron M.[14]
Peniston R.
6-27-64
Sinner J.[6]
Verbeek S.
6-06-1
Sock J.
Humbert U.[1]
7-656-4
Sarmiento R.
Gojowczyk P.[16]
4-66-36-2
Korda S.
Oconnell C.[15]
6-16-1
Tiafoe F.[8]
Mmoh M.
6-46-3
Kudla D.[11]
Janvier M.
6-26-1
Donskoy E.[13]
Redlicki M.
7-646-0
Marcora R.
Arneodo R.
4-66-17-68
R64
Mmoh M.
Santillan A.
6-06-3
Polmans M.
Nanda G.
6-26-3
Krueger M.
Sela D.
0-67-647-5
Redlicki M.
Li Z.
6-26-2
Mcdonald M.
Mott B.
6-06-4
Rubin N.
Petrovic D.
3-67-646-1
Verbeek S.
Cressy M.
7-646-3
Sarmiento R.
Copil M.
6-36-3
Zverev M.
Aragone J.
5-76-07-66
Korda S.
Holt B.
6-36-1
Nakashima B.
Broady L.
6-26-3
Kwiatkowski T.
Chung H.
7-626-2
Peniston R.
Smith K.
7-656-4
Marcora R.
Brymer G.
6-46-3
Janvier M.
Klahn B.
6-46-4
Sock J.
Uchida K.
6-15-76-2