Nerman Fatic vs Matteo Viola — Verona CH Round of 32

Verona CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 16 August 2021
clay
ITA
Matteo Viola
39 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLLLLL
Fatic N.
6-0 6-1
Viola M.
Fatic N.
662
Viola M.
010

Nerman Fatic defeated Matteo Viola 6-0 6-1 in the Verona CH round of 32 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Viola M.

Viola M.serving61% hold

wins 55% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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
Fatic N.Viola M.
1st serve in·Even
63%
65%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
63%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
46%
Service points won·Even
61%
57%
Return points won·Even
39%
40%
Break points saved·Slight edge
59%
53%
Aces / match·Clear edge
4.1
1.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.4
3.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 63). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Viola M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
24
8
Break points saved·Dominant
63
20
Break points won·Slight edge
36
25
Deciding sets·Slight edge
24
15
Tiebreaks·Dominant
35
71

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Viola M.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.5
Surface form
1.9
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
4.8
Minutes 14d
4.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
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-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Rune H.[4]
Serdarusic N.
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Serdarusic N.
Clarke J.[5]
6-16-1
Rune H.[4]
Taberner C.[1]
6-26-1
Quarter-finals
Clarke J.[5]
Popko D.[2]
3-66-47-5
Serdarusic N.
Elias G.[8]
4-66-36-0
Rune H.[4]
Bonadio R.
6-36-2
Taberner C.[1]
Janvier M.[6]
6-26-2
R16
Popko D.[2]
Zeppieri G.
7-52-66-2
Clarke J.[5]
Quiroz R.
6-46-4
Serdarusic N.
Lorenzi P.[3]
6-36-1
Elias G.[8]
Forti F.
6-26-4
Bonadio R.
Fatic N.
6-16-4
Rune H.[4]
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
6-26-3
Janvier M.[6]
Gabashvili T.
6-26-2
Taberner C.[1]
Kotov P.
6-24-66-1
R32
Popko D.[2]
Luz O.
6-36-1
Quiroz R.
Tseng C.
6-20-66-4
Clarke J.[5]
Mejia N.
6-36-4
Lorenzi P.[3]
Oliveira G.
6-36-3
Serdarusic N.
Baldi F.
6-36-2
Forti F.
Scott F.
6-17-5
Elias G.[8]
Arnaboldi A.
6-26-4
Bonadio R.
Giustino L.[7]
4-66-46-4
Fatic N.
Viola M.
6-06-1
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
Jaziri M.
6-46-1
Janvier M.[6]
Guinard M.
6-46-747-66
Gabashvili T.
Van Rijthoven T.
6-736-27-64
Kotov P.
Bortolotti M.
6-36-3
Taberner C.[1]
De Jong J.
6-37-61
Rune H.[4]
Pecotic M.
6-27-63
Zeppieri G.
Sachko V.
1-67-56-2