Holger Rune vs Cem Ilkel — Bergamo CH Final

Bergamo CH · CHALLENGER · Final
Holger Rune
DEN3
Holger Rune
#81ATP
1757ELO
1725Hard ELO
$0YTD
$16MCAREER
23 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 November 2021
hard
Cem Ilkel
TUR
Cem Ilkel
#1462ATP
30 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLWL
Rune H.
7-5 7-6
Ilkel C.
Rune H.
7782
Ilkel C.
5660

Holger Rune defeated Cem Ilkel 7-5 7-6 in the Bergamo CH final on hard. The result followed the form book — Holger Rune came in ranked #81, leading the head-to-head 1–0. Holger Rune extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2019-09-13Davis Cup G2 R1: DEN vs TURRRhardHolger Rune7-6(4) 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Rune H.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Ilkel C.

Ilkel C.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Rune H.

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

Serve & return on hard

Rune H.Ilkel C.
47
Serve
—
58
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Rune H.Ilkel C.
1st serve in·Even
62%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
50%
Service points won·Even
66%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
58%
Aces / match·Slight edge
5.9
4.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.2
2.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 191). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rune H.Ilkel C.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
91
32
Break points saved·Dominant
99
49
Break points won·Dominant
84
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
98
70
Tiebreaks·Dominant
99
66

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rune H.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Ilkel C.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
10.0
H2H
0.0
4.6
Surface form
4.6
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.7
Minutes 14d
8.6
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
7.0

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