Emilio Nava vs Donald Young — Knoxville CH Round of 32

Knoxville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 8 November 2021
hard
USA
Donald Young
36 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLLLL
Nava E.
6-3 6-2
Young D.
Nava E.
662
Young D.
320

Emilio Nava defeated Donald Young 6-3 6-2 in the Knoxville CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Emilio Nava extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2022-08-22Winston-SalemQ1hardEmilio Nava6-2 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Young D.

Young D.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Serve advantage — Nava E.

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

Nava E.Young D.
39
Serve
—
21
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Young D.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
66%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
47%
Service points won·Slight edge
64%
59%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
64%
55%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.7
2.3
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.0
4.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 73). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Young D.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
34
Break points saved·Clear edge
94
76
Break points won·Even
17
20
Deciding sets·Dominant
89
26
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
82

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Young D.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.6
Surface form
2.9
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
6.4
Minutes 14d
6.5
4.0
3-set count
4.0
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Nava E.Young D.
Freshness·Clear edge
100
88

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Young D.: 2 days rest · 1 match, 21 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Eubanks C.
Altmaier D.[2]
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Altmaier D.[2]
Mmoh M.
3-66-36-4
Eubanks C.
Fratangelo B.[8]
7-57-5
Quarter-finals
Altmaier D.[2]
Sock J.[5]
3-67-57-62
Mmoh M.
Mchugh A.
3-66-36-1
Fratangelo B.[8]
Nava E.
6-46-4
Eubanks C.
Harrison C.
6-37-69
R16
Mmoh M.
Krueger M.[4]
7-641-66-2
Harrison C.
Jung J.
3-67-634-2
Nava E.
Polansky P.
2-67-620-0
Altmaier D.[2]
Rola B.
7-636-4
Sock J.[5]
Gunneswaran P.
6-37-61
Mchugh A.
Kozlov S.
6-46-4
Eubanks C.
Soeda G.
6-32-67-64
Fratangelo B.[8]
Brouwer G.
6-33-66-3
R32
Soeda G.
Jaziri M.
6-47-66
Harrison C.
Wolf J.[6]
6-26-3
Jung J.
Kubler J.
6-46-1
Rola B.
Kwiatkowski T.
6-37-65
Mmoh M.
Uchiyama Y.
7-56-3
Altmaier D.[2]
Walton A.
6-36-2
Gunneswaran P.
Torpegaard M.
6-27-62
Sock J.[5]
Kovacevic A.
7-647-5
Krueger M.[4]
Ito T.
7-646-3
Kozlov S.
Vukic A.
6-34-67-5
Mchugh A.
Popko D.[7]
6-47-5
Eubanks C.
Pospisil V.[3]
2-66-26-3
Fratangelo B.[8]
Watanuki Y.
6-47-65
Nava E.
Young D.
6-36-2
Polansky P.
Sandgren T.[1]
3-67-637-64
Brouwer G.
Aragone J.
5-76-27-5