Antoine Hoang vs Lukas Rosol — Amersfoort CH Quarter-final

Amersfoort CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
FRA4
Antoine Hoang
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 12 July 2021
clay
CZE8
Lukas Rosol
40 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLLLLLLLL
Hoang A.
6-4 7-6
Rosol L.
Hoang A.
6772
Rosol L.
4640

Antoine Hoang defeated Lukas Rosol 6-4 7-6 in the Amersfoort CH quarter-final on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Hoang A.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Rosol L.

Rosol L.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Hoang A.

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

Statistics

This season
Hoang A.Rosol L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
68%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Even
60%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
3.8
4.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.7
3.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (102 vs 113). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Hoang A.Rosol L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
18
51
Break points saved·Slight edge
81
89
Break points won·Clear edge
15
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
5
77
Tiebreaks·Dominant
40
73

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Hoang A.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Rosol L.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.0
Surface form
1.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
0.1
Minutes 14d
8.7
0.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
3.0
Surface transition
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
Griekspoor T.[1]
Van De Zandschulp B.[2]
6-13-66-1
Semi-finals
Van De Zandschulp B.[2]
Andreozzi G.[7]
6-746-36-2
Griekspoor T.[1]
Hoang A.[4]
4-66-36-4
Quarter-finals
Van De Zandschulp B.[2]
De Jong J.
6-36-0
Andreozzi G.[7]
Sels J.
3-66-46-2
Hoang A.[4]
Rosol L.[8]
6-47-64
Griekspoor T.[1]
Coppejans K.[6]
3-66-36-2
R16
Van De Zandschulp B.[2]
Moraing M.
6-37-5
De Jong J.
Safwat M.[5]
2-66-16-4
Sels J.
Vatutin A.
6-26-2
Andreozzi G.[7]
Vukic A.
7-52-66-3
Coppejans K.[6]
Brouwer G.
6-36-4
Griekspoor T.[1]
Vrbensky M.
6-46-4
Rosol L.[8]
Nikles J.
6-26-1
Hoang A.[4]
Mena F.
7-647-65
R32
Hoang A.[4]
Maden Y.
6-47-65
Brouwer G.
Jong S.
7-670-0
Moraing M.
Haerteis J.
6-16-0
Brouwer G.
Jong A.
7-670-0
Van De Zandschulp B.[2]
Oliveira G.
6-26-4
De Jong J.
Guinard M.
7-654-67-65
Safwat M.[5]
Elias G.
6-16-3
Sels J.
Aragone J.
6-16-1
Vukic A.
Haase R.
6-47-61
Andreozzi G.[7]
Lehecka J.
7-52-66-4
Rosol L.[8]
Kopriva V.
7-646-2
Mena F.
Bellucci T.
6-36-4
Coppejans K.[6]
Wassermann D.
6-35-76-2
Vrbensky M.
Bergs Z.
6-47-62
Nikles J.
Nijboer R.
7-656-2
Griekspoor T.[1]
Geerts M.
6-27-62
Vatutin A.
Polmans M.[3]
6-746-46-4