Altug Celikbilek vs Tatsuma Ito — Porto CH Quarter-final

Porto CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
TUR
Altug Celikbilek
29 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWLLWWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 28 June 2021
hard
JPN
Tatsuma Ito
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
Celikbilek A.
7-5 6-3
Ito T.
Celikbilek A.
762
Ito T.
530

Altug Celikbilek defeated Tatsuma Ito 7-5 6-3 in the Porto CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Altug Celikbilek came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Altug Celikbilek extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2021-05-31Roland GarrosQ1clayAltug Celikbilek6-3 4-6 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Celikbilek A.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Ito T.

Ito T.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Celikbilek A.

Serve advantage — Celikbilek A.

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
Celikbilek A.Ito T.
1st serve in·Even
58%
59%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
71%
66%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
47%
Service points won·Even
62%
59%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Even
60%
58%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.3
3.3
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.7
3.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (191 vs 55). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Celikbilek A.Ito T.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
40
24
Break points saved·Clear edge
73
61
Break points won·Dominant
38
9
Deciding sets·Clear edge
57
43
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
26
48

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Celikbilek A.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Ito T.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.4
Surface form
2.4
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
8.0
Prev. match
7.0
Surface transition
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Celikbilek A.
Halys Q.
6-26-1
Semi-finals
Halys Q.
Gomez E.[3]
6-46-4
Celikbilek A.
Stakhovsky S.
6-26-1
Quarter-finals
Halys Q.
Diez S.
6-36-0
Gomez E.[3]
Elias G.
6-37-64
Celikbilek A.
Ito T.
7-56-3
Stakhovsky S.
Oliveira G.
7-627-65
R16
Stakhovsky S.
Viola M.
6-24-67-5
Diez S.
Gunneswaran P.[2]
6-31-66-4
Halys Q.
Kokkinakis T.[7]
7-656-4
Gomez E.[3]
Blancaneaux G.
6-16-776-1
Elias G.
Istomin D.[8]
7-56-4
Oliveira G.
Polansky P.
7-636-4
Celikbilek A.
Seyboth Wild T.[1]
7-656-3
Ito T.
Ferreira Silva F.[5]
6-41-0
R32
Viola M.
Cid R.
6-14-1
Ito T.
Faria L.
6-06-2
Seyboth Wild T.[1]
Olivo R.
6-46-2
Gunneswaran P.[2]
Bourgue M.
6-23-66-1
Diez S.
Janvier M.
7-52-67-65
Kokkinakis T.[7]
Marcora R.
7-636-1
Gomez E.[3]
Kuhn N.
7-56-2
Blancaneaux G.
Domingues J.
6-756-26-4
Elias G.
Verbeek S.
6-776-46-1
Istomin D.[8]
Andreozzi G.
6-46-3
Stakhovsky S.
Soeda G.[6]
2-66-27-65
Oliveira G.
Borges N.
6-16-2
Polansky P.
Tabilo A.[4]
1-66-16-2
Celikbilek A.
Watanuki Y.
6-36-756-3
Ferreira Silva F.[5]
Giustino L.
6-44-66-3
Halys Q.
Blanch U.
6-33-66-1