Tim Van Rijthoven vs Igor Sijsling — Pozoblanco CH Round of 16

Pozoblanco CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
NED
Tim Van Rijthoven
29 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 19 July 2021
hard
NED
Igor Sijsling
38 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWWLWL
Van Rijthoven T.
6-4 6-4
Sijsling I.
Van Rijthoven T.
662
Sijsling I.
440

Tim Van Rijthoven defeated Igor Sijsling 6-4 6-4 in the Pozoblanco CH round of 16 on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Tim Van Rijthoven edged a tight contest from start to finish — 6–4 6–4.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van Rijthoven T.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Sijsling I.

Sijsling I.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Van Rijthoven T.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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
Van Rijthoven T.Sijsling I.
1st serve in·Slight edge
65%
59%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
77%
67%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
54%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
69%
59%
Return points won·Slight edge
34%
39%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
57%
Aces / match·Dominant
10.6
2.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.2
1.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (119 vs 27). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Van Rijthoven T.Sijsling I.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
26
11
Break points saved·Dominant
90
60
Break points won·Clear edge
1
16
Deciding sets·Slight edge
19
13
Tiebreaks·Dominant
61
27

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van Rijthoven T.
5.1
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 56 days (−0.7)
Sijsling I.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.6
Surface form
2.9
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
9.2
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
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
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Celikbilek A.[3]
Ilkel C.[4]
6-16-726-3
Semi-finals
Ilkel C.[4]
Geerts M.
6-26-736-4
Celikbilek A.[3]
Barrere G.[2]
4-66-31-1
Quarter-finals
Barrere G.[2]
Zeballos F.
6-46-3
Celikbilek A.[3]
Menendez Maceiras A.
6-36-0
Ilkel C.[4]
Van Rijthoven T.
7-57-65
Geerts M.
Nava E.
7-627-63
R16
Barrere G.[2]
Andreev A.
6-36-0
Zeballos F.
Jianu F.
7-666-4
Celikbilek A.[3]
Gabashvili T.
5-76-36-4
Menendez Maceiras A.
Janvier M.[5]
7-646-3
Van Rijthoven T.
Sijsling I.
6-46-4
Ilkel C.[4]
Moriya H.
6-36-2
Nava E.
Viola M.
7-54-66-3
Geerts M.
Bonzi B.[1]
7-636-2
R32
Barrere G.[2]
Roumane R.
7-656-3
Andreev A.
Ruiz Romero B.
6-06-0
Jianu F.
Alvarez Varona N.
6-26-4
Zeballos F.
Gojo B.[6]
6-47-64
Celikbilek A.[3]
Mansouri S.
6-736-17-64
Gabashvili T.
Martineau M.
6-41-66-4
Menendez Maceiras A.
Barroso Campos A.
6-26-4
Janvier M.[5]
Bourgue M.
6-736-27-612
Ilkel C.[4]
Haerteis J.
6-27-63
Nava E.
Maden Y.[7]
6-17-65
Viola M.
Bellucci T.
6-16-3
Geerts M.
Uchida K.
6-16-2
Bonzi B.[1]
Dougaz A.
4-66-46-3
Van Rijthoven T.
Ortega Olmedo R.
6-36-737-5
Moriya H.
Gomez Herrera C.
3-66-36-0
Sijsling I.
Kuhn N.[8]
7-50-0