Holger Rune vs Maxime Cressy — Pau CH Quarter-final

Pau CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Holger Rune
DEN2
Holger Rune
#81ATP
1757ELO
1725Hard ELO
$0YTD
$16MCAREER
23 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 15 November 2021
hard
USA6
Maxime Cressy
#1472ATP
29 yrs · 201 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLL
Rune H.
6-2 6-2
Cressy M.
Rune H.
662
Cressy M.
220

Holger Rune defeated Maxime Cressy 6-2 6-2 in the Pau CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Holger Rune came in ranked #81, leading the head-to-head 3–1. Holger Rune extended the head-to-head to 4–1.

Key context

Head to head

3–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-06-19Queen's ClubR32grassHolger Rune7-6(4) 7-6(3)
2023-02-06MontpellierSFhardMaxime Cressy7-5 6-7(3) 7-6(4)
2023-01-16Australian OpenR64hardHolger Rune7-5 6-4 6-4
2022-04-11Monte Carlo MastersQ2clayHolger Rune6-3 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Rune H.serving93% hold

wins 72% of points on serve vs Cressy M.

Cressy M.serving91% hold

wins 71% 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.Cressy M.
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.Cressy M.
1st serve in·Even
62%
61%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
79%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
51%
Service points won·Even
66%
68%
Return points won·Even
36%
33%
Break points saved·Even
65%
65%
Aces / match·Dominant
5.9
13.2
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.2
8.6

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Rune H.Cressy M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
91
24
Break points saved·Even
99
96
Break points won·Dominant
84
2
Deciding sets·Dominant
98
32
Tiebreaks·Dominant
99
8

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rune H.
6.6
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Cressy M.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.7
Surface form
8.2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
0.9
Minutes 14d
0.0
0.0
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
5.0
5.0
Opponent rise

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
Albot R.[7]
Lehecka J.
6-27-65
Semi-finals
Lehecka J.
Rune H.[2]
3-66-36-4
Albot R.[7]
Stakhovsky S.
6-26-736-1
Quarter-finals
Lehecka J.
Mayot H.
6-46-2
Albot R.[7]
Lopez F.[1]
6-37-65
Rune H.[2]
Cressy M.[6]
6-26-2
Stakhovsky S.
Gombos N.[5]
6-41-67-65
R16
Cressy M.[6]
Sachko V.
0-66-16-1
Gombos N.[5]
Kotov P.
6-36-4
Mayot H.
Geerts M.
6-04-67-65
Stakhovsky S.
Added D.
6-44-66-4
Albot R.[7]
Kravchenko G.
7-626-4
Lopez F.[1]
Ajdukovic D.
6-34-66-4
Rune H.[2]
Fanselow S.
6-26-2
Lehecka J.
Hemery C.
7-644-67-5
R32
Stakhovsky S.
Novak D.[4]
6-36-1
Kravchenko G.
Giannessi A.
7-54-66-2
Albot R.[7]
Lestienne C.
6-24-66-2
Hemery C.
Janvier M.
6-36-756-3
Cressy M.[6]
Blancaneaux G.
6-34-67-65
Added D.
Diez S.
1-67-626-2
Lopez F.[1]
Fabbiano T.
6-26-1
Ajdukovic D.
Tseng C.
0-67-656-2
Mayot H.
Kolar Z.[8]
6-46-4
Fanselow S.
Moriya H.
7-656-4
Rune H.[2]
Cagnina J.
6-07-5
Sachko V.
Ritschard A.
6-716-16-2
Lehecka J.
Simon G.[3]
6-16-726-2
Geerts M.
Marcora R.
6-46-2
Gombos N.[5]
Debru G.
6-46-1
Kotov P.
Arnaboldi A.
6-26-4