Yu Hsiou Hsu vs Alessandro Bega — Nur-Sultan 4 CH Round of 32

Nur-Sultan 4 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Yu Hsiou Hsu
TPE
Yu Hsiou Hsu
#210ATP
1489ELO
1468Hard ELO
27 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLLWLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 19 July 2021
hard
ITA
Alessandro Bega
35 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLL
Hsu Y.
6-3 1-6 6-3
Bega A.
Hsu Y.
6162
Bega A.
3631

Yu Hsiou Hsu defeated Alessandro Bega 6-3 1-6 6-3 in the Nur-Sultan 4 CH round of 32 on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Yu Hsiou Hsu closed it out in three sets, 6–3 1–6 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Hsu Y.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Bega A.

Bega A.serving67% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Hsu Y.

Serve advantage — Hsu Y.

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
Hsu Y.Bega A.
1st serve in·Even
65%
66%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
67%
62%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
50%
44%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
56%
Return points won·Even
39%
39%
Break points saved·Even
59%
55%
Aces / match·Clear edge
3.4
1.1
Double faults / match·Even
2.3
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (196 vs 20). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Hsu Y.Bega A.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
36
0
Break points saved·Dominant
74
23
Break points won·Dominant
4
35
Deciding sets·Dominant
50
10
Tiebreaks·Dominant
77
20

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Hsu Y.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Bega A.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.6
Surface form
2.5
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 5
Fatigue & Travel
7.8
Minutes 14d
8.7
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Kuznetsov A.
Kubler J.
6-32-1
Semi-finals
Kubler J.
Krutykh O.
6-16-3
Kuznetsov A.
Kotov P.
6-26-746-4
Quarter-finals
Kubler J.
Grenier H.[4]
7-646-1
Kuznetsov A.
Polansky P.[5]
6-23-66-2
Kotov P.
Peniston R.
6-46-2
Krutykh O.
Chappell N.
3-66-37-5
R16
Kubler J.
Tseng C.[7]
0-66-37-5
Chappell N.
Stakhovsky S.[2]
7-646-4
Krutykh O.
Basic M.
4-67-56-2
Polansky P.[5]
Jaziri M.
3-67-57-64
Kuznetsov A.
Zhukayev B.
6-27-5
Peniston R.
Hsu Y.
6-36-4
Kotov P.
De Jong J.[6]
6-37-63
Grenier H.[4]
Nedelko I.
6-5
R32
Stakhovsky S.[2]
Lock B.
6-33-67-5
Basic M.
Santillan A.
6-26-2
Krutykh O.
Wu T.[8]
6-26-2
Grenier H.[4]
Chung Y.
6-756-36-1
Kubler J.
Sultanov K.
6-37-5
Tseng C.[7]
Denolly C.
6-46-4
Jaziri M.
Zakharov A.
6-06-2
Zhukayev B.
Catarina L.
6-26-4
De Jong J.[6]
Yevseyev D.
4-66-06-3
Kotov P.
Leshem E.
3-66-16-4
Peniston R.
Kirkin E.
6-26-3
Chappell N.
Lomakin G.
6-37-63
Polansky P.[5]
Dubrivnyy A.
7-57-65
Nedelko I.
Tashbulatov D.
6-36-2
Kuznetsov A.
Clarke J.[3]
7-666-4
Hsu Y.
Bega A.
6-31-66-3