Marius Copil vs Nerman Fatic — Ortisei CH Round of 16

Ortisei CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
ROU
Marius Copil
35 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 8 November 2021
hard
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
Copil M.
7-6 6-2
Fatic N.
Copil M.
7762
Fatic N.
6120

Marius Copil defeated Nerman Fatic 7-6 6-2 in the Ortisei CH round of 16 on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Marius Copil closed it out in two sets, 7–6 6–2.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Copil M.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Fatic N.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Copil M.

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
Copil M.Fatic N.
1st serve in·Even
59%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
75%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
61%
Return points won·Slight edge
35%
40%
Break points saved·Even
62%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
8.3
4.1
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.0
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (154 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Copil M.Fatic N.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
47
24
Break points saved·Dominant
91
63
Break points won·Dominant
3
36
Deciding sets·Dominant
63
24
Tiebreaks·Dominant
79
35

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Copil M.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Fatic N.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.7
Surface form
4.6
Fatigue & Travel
7.3
Minutes 14d
7.2
7.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Otte O.[1]
Cressy M.[2]
7-656-4
Semi-finals
Cressy M.[2]
Basic M.
7-56-2
Otte O.[1]
Draper J.
7-636-4
Quarter-finals
Cressy M.[2]
Copil M.
7-686-4
Otte O.[1]
Peniston R.
6-26-4
Basic M.
Sachko V.
7-633-66-2
Draper J.
Gaio F.[5]
6-767-656-2
R16
Peniston R.
Huesler M.[7]
7-616-4
Basic M.
Halys Q.[3]
7-6126-3
Draper J.
Miedler L.
6-47-61
Copil M.
Fatic N.
7-616-2
Sachko V.
Gojo B.
6-26-4
Cressy M.[2]
Quiroz R.
7-636-4
Otte O.[1]
Bachinger M.
6-36-1
Gaio F.[5]
Stricker D.
7-657-62
R32
Draper J.
Gomez E.[4]
6-46-2
Otte O.[1]
Marcora R.
7-617-64
Gojo B.
Masur D.
6-47-64
Sachko V.
Verdasco F.[6]
7-664-66-3
Peniston R.
Cozbinov A.
6-36-2
Bachinger M.
Simon T.
6-36-797-66
Huesler M.[7]
Moroni G.
6-47-61
Miedler L.
Arnaldi M.
7-696-0
Gaio F.[5]
Kuhn N.
6-37-65
Stricker D.
Viola M.
6-43-67-5
Cressy M.[2]
Van Rijthoven T.
7-667-5
Quiroz R.
Tseng C.
4-66-36-4
Copil M.
Weis A.
6-47-65
Fatic N.
Giannessi A.[8]
6-766-37-5
Halys Q.[3]
Nardi L.
6-46-3
Basic M.
Karlovskiy E.
6-46-3