Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Riccardo Bonadio — Tampere CH Round of 32

Tampere CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Botic Van De Zandschulp
NED1
Botic Van De Zandschulp
#55ATP
1743ELO
1690Clay ELO
$690kYTD
$6.6MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 19 July 2021
clay
ITA
Riccardo Bonadio
33 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWWWLW
Van De Zandschulp B.
4-6 6-2 6-2
Bonadio R.
Van De Zandschulp B.
4662
Bonadio R.
6221

Botic Van De Zandschulp defeated Riccardo Bonadio 4-6 6-2 6-2 in the Tampere CH round of 32 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Bonadio R.

Bonadio R.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

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

Van De Zandschulp B.Bonadio R.
26
Serve
—
74
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.Bonadio R.
1st serve in·Even
62%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
47%
51%
Service points won·Even
62%
61%
Return points won·Even
38%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
58%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.6
2.6
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.9
2.2

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Van De Zandschulp B.Bonadio R.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
77
26
Break points saved·Dominant
98
70
Break points won·Dominant
68
19
Deciding sets·Dominant
79
44
Tiebreaks·Dominant
80
17

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van De Zandschulp B.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Bonadio R.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.3
Surface form
4.3
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
5.0
Minutes 14d
6.5
4.0
3-set count
9.0
Prev. match
8.0
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
Van De Zandschulp B.Bonadio R.
Freshness·
95
—

Van De Zandschulp B.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Lehecka J.
Kicker N.
5-76-46-3
Semi-finals
Lehecka J.
Jacquet K.
6-36-0
Kicker N.
Van De Zandschulp B.[1]
6-33-66-3
Quarter-finals
Lehecka J.
Virtanen O.
6-46-1
Kicker N.
Vilella Martinez M.[4]
7-666-0
Jacquet K.
Blancaneaux G.
6-36-3
Van De Zandschulp B.[1]
Popko D.[5]
6-47-60
R16
Blancaneaux G.
Erler A.
6-34-66-2
Jacquet K.
Kuzmanov D.
3-66-47-65
Lehecka J.
Jarry N.
6-46-4
Virtanen O.
Andreozzi G.[8]
6-26-4
Kicker N.
Muller A.[7]
6-43-66-2
Vilella Martinez M.[4]
Cachin P.
7-56-4
Popko D.[5]
Arnaboldi A.
6-46-3
Van De Zandschulp B.[1]
Krstin P.
6-36-1
R32
Erler A.
Elias G.
6-43-67-5
Blancaneaux G.
Mena F.
6-47-5
Kuzmanov D.
Coppejans K.[6]
1-66-37-66
Lehecka J.
Hoang A.[3]
6-16-4
Jarry N.
Forejtek J.
6-736-36-3
Virtanen O.
Cazaux A.
3-67-656-2
Andreozzi G.[8]
Moraing M.
6-46-1
Kicker N.
Borg L.
6-36-0
Cachin P.
Bobrov B.
6-17-5
Vilella Martinez M.[4]
Domingues J.
4-67-657-5
Popko D.[5]
Luz O.
7-657-5
Arnaboldi A.
Meligeni Alves F.
6-16-4
Krstin P.
Aragone J.
6-46-4
Van De Zandschulp B.[1]
Bonadio R.
4-66-26-2
Muller A.[7]
Niklas Salminen P.
6-26-1
Jacquet K.
Oliveira G.
2-66-13-0