Nerman Fatic vs Mohamed Safwat — Bergamo CH Round of 32

Bergamo CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 November 2021
hard
EGY
Mohamed Safwat
#1884ATP
35 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLLWLLLW
Fatic N.
6-4 6-2
Safwat M.
Fatic N.
662
Safwat M.
420

Nerman Fatic defeated Mohamed Safwat 6-4 6-2 in the Bergamo CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Nerman Fatic came in ranked #396, defending last year's round of 64.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Safwat M.

Safwat M.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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

Statistics

This season
Fatic N.Safwat M.
1st serve in·Slight edge
63%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
48%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
59%
57%
Aces / match·Even
4.1
4.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.4
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 87). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Safwat M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
24
8
Break points saved·Even
63
64
Break points won·Dominant
36
2
Deciding sets·Slight edge
24
17
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
21

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Safwat M.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.6
Surface form
4.1
7.03-match win streak
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
5.5
Minutes 14d
9.2
7.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
Surface transition
Context
6.0
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Rune H.[3]
Ilkel C.
7-57-66
Semi-finals
Rune H.[3]
Molcan A.[1]
7-51-66-4
Ilkel C.
Marozsan F.
7-625-76-4
Quarter-finals
Marozsan F.
Novak D.[2]
7-56-1
Rune H.[3]
Dzumhur D.[8]
7-692-66-1
Molcan A.[1]
Kolar Z.[6]
6-46-4
Ilkel C.
Broady L.[5]
7-53-66-1
R16
Novak D.[2]
Donskoy E.
6-32-66-1
Marozsan F.
Stakhovsky S.
7-56-2
Rune H.[3]
Horansky F.
5-76-46-2
Molcan A.[1]
Fatic N.
6-16-4
Dzumhur D.[8]
Lehecka J.
6-46-4
Broady L.[5]
Marchenko I.
6-44-66-3
Kolar Z.[6]
Oconnell C.
5-77-657-5
Ilkel C.
Albot R.[4]
7-56-3
R32
Novak D.[2]
Marcora R.
7-647-62
Kolar Z.[6]
Kukushkin M.
6-36-1
Broady L.[5]
Petrovic D.
6-33-66-3
Dzumhur D.[8]
Cobolli F.
6-47-5
Donskoy E.
Gaio F.
6-36-3
Albot R.[4]
Janvier M.
5-77-56-4
Oconnell C.
Maden Y.
6-37-65
Ilkel C.
Kotov P.
4-66-17-65
Stakhovsky S.
Arnaldi M.
6-36-747-65
Marozsan F.
Milojevic N.[7]
4-66-16-3
Marchenko I.
Nardi L.
7-616-4
Lehecka J.
Grenier H.
6-37-5
Horansky F.
Potenza L.
6-46-3
Rune H.[3]
Bourgue M.
6-36-4
Fatic N.
Safwat M.
6-46-2
Molcan A.[1]
Serdarusic N.
6-746-46-2