Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Pedja Krstin — Tampere CH Round of 16

Tampere CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
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 — 0
Sets
Monday, 19 July 2021
clay
SRB
Pedja Krstin
31 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWLLLL
Van De Zandschulp B.
6-3 6-1
Krstin P.
Van De Zandschulp B.
662
Krstin P.
310

Botic Van De Zandschulp defeated Pedja Krstin 6-3 6-1 in the Tampere CH round of 16 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Krstin P.

Krstin P.serving64% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

Serve advantage — Van De Zandschulp B.

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.Krstin P.
33
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.Krstin P.
1st serve in·Even
62%
58%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
71%
66%
2nd serve points won·Even
47%
44%
Service points won·Slight edge
62%
57%
Return points won·Even
38%
35%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
52%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.6
3.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.9
4.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 55). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Van De Zandschulp B.Krstin P.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
77
0
Break points saved·Dominant
98
27
Break points won·Dominant
68
24
Deciding sets·Dominant
79
4
Tiebreaks·Dominant
81
12

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.
7.1
Strong advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Krstin P.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
10.0No prior meetings
H2H
0.0
8.3
Surface form
4.2
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
5.0
Minutes 14d
9.1
4.0
3-set count
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
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.Krstin P.
Freshness·
91
—

Van De Zandschulp B.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (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