Tommy Paul vs Jan Lennard Struff — Parma Quarter-final

Parma · ATP · Quarter-final
Tommy Paul
USA6
Tommy Paul
#25ATP
1949ELO
1886Clay ELO
$1.7MYTD
$15MCAREER
29 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWWWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 24 May 2021
clay
Jan Lennard Struff
GER4
Jan Lennard Struff
#74ATP
1694ELO
1659Clay ELO
$492kYTD
$13MCAREER
36 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWLWLWL
Paul T.
6-2 6-4
Struff J.
Paul T.
662
Struff J.
240

Tommy Paul defeated Jan Lennard Struff 6-2 6-4 in the Parma quarter-final on clay. The result followed the form book — Tommy Paul came in ranked #25, leading the head-to-head 3–1. Tommy Paul extended the head-to-head to 4–1.

Key context

Head to head

3–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-06-12StuttgartR16grassJan Lennard Struff7-6(4) 7-6(5)
2023-03-06Indian Wells MastersR64hardTommy Paul6-3 6-3
2023-01-16Australian OpenR128hardTommy Paul6-1 7-6(6) 6-2
2021-11-01Paris MastersR64hardTommy Paul6-3 6-4
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Paul T.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Struff J.

Struff J.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Paul T.

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

Serve & return on clay

Paul T.Struff J.
34
Serve
—
—
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Paul T.Struff J.
1st serve in·Even
62%
59%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
75%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
51%
Service points won·Even
65%
65%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
63%
63%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.1
8.7
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.1
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Paul T.Struff J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
93
61
Break points saved·Even
99
99
Break points won·Dominant
87
21
Deciding sets·Dominant
98
68
Tiebreaks·Even
96
94

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Paul T.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Struff J.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.4+226 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.6Clay Elo 1659
7.9Overall Elo 1949
ELO gap
2.1Overall Elo 1694
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.2
Surface form
5.1
Fatigue & Travel
5.0
Minutes 14d
8.0
7.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
5.0

The Umpiry Score combines match-context factors — matchup, form, fatigue, travel and motivation — into a single 0–10 score, updated daily. Read how it works.

Freshness

Recent load
Paul T.Struff J.
Freshness·Dominant
84
53

Paul T.: 8 days rest · 3 matches (14d) · Struff J.: 4 days rest · 2 matches, 87 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Korda S.
Cecchinato M.
6-26-4
Semi-finals
Cecchinato M.
Munar J.
7-621-66-1
Korda S.
Paul T.[6]
6-36-3
Quarter-finals
Munar J.
Gasquet R.[5]
6-16-1
Cecchinato M.
Gombos N.
6-36-1
Paul T.[6]
Struff J.[4]
6-26-4
Korda S.
Nishioka Y.[8]
6-36-3
R16
Munar J.
Paire B.[2]
7-53-1
Gasquet R.[5]
Martinez P.
6-33-66-3
Gombos N.
Ramos A.[3]
6-36-746-2
Cecchinato M.
Bedene A.[7]
7-56-2
Paul T.[6]
Vesely J.
6-737-656-3
Struff J.[4]
Cobolli F.
6-44-67-62
Nishioka Y.[8]
Musetti L.
6-36-2
Korda S.
Sonego L.[1]
6-17-5
R32
Musetti L.
Mager G.
4-66-16-2
Munar J.
Ymer M.
6-37-65
Martinez P.
Simon G.
6-06-4
Gasquet R.[5]
Altmaier D.
6-36-3
Gombos N.
Ruusuvuori E.
7-645-76-3
Paul T.[6]
Travaglia S.
7-56-4
Cecchinato M.
Brancaccio R.
6-37-65
Vesely J.
Johnson S.
7-676-2
Cobolli F.
Giron M.
3-67-667-64
Korda S.
Seppi A.
6-36-4
Bedene A.[7]
Caruso S.
6-47-68
Nishioka Y.[8]
Querrey S.
3-66-37-63