Lukas Rosol vs Johan Nikles — Amersfoort CH Round of 16

Amersfoort CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
CZE8
Lukas Rosol
40 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLLLLLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 12 July 2021
clay
Johan Nikles
SUI
Johan Nikles
#411ATP
1319ELO
1306Clay ELO
29 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
Rosol L.
6-2 6-1
Nikles J.
Rosol L.
662
Nikles J.
210

Lukas Rosol defeated Johan Nikles 6-2 6-1 in the Amersfoort CH round of 16 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Johan Nikles came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Lukas Rosol claimed a first win over Johan Nikles in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2022-05-16GenevaQ2clayJohan Nikles6-4 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Rosol L.serving61% hold

wins 55% of points on serve vs Nikles J.

Nikles J.serving61% hold

wins 55% of points on serve vs Rosol L.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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
Rosol L.Nikles J.
1st serve in·Even
61%
65%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
70%
60%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
47%
Service points won·Slight edge
62%
55%
Return points won·Slight edge
37%
44%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
55%
Aces / match·Dominant
4.6
1.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.3
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (113 vs 105). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rosol L.Nikles J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
51
7
Break points saved·Dominant
89
22
Break points won·Dominant
3
30
Deciding sets·Dominant
78
29
Tiebreaks·
72
—

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rosol L.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Nikles J.
3.7
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 112 days (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
1.0
Surface form
0.0Lost last 4
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.7
Minutes 14d
Surface transition
6.0
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
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