Holger Rune vs Sebastian Fanselow — Pau CH Round of 16

Pau CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
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
GER
Sebastian Fanselow
#1187ATP
34 yrs · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
Rune H.
6-2 6-2
Fanselow S.
Rune H.
662
Fanselow S.
220

Holger Rune defeated Sebastian Fanselow 6-2 6-2 in the Pau CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Holger Rune came in ranked #81.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Rune H.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Fanselow S.

Fanselow S.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Rune H.

Serve advantage — Rune H.

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.Fanselow S.
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.Fanselow S.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
57%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
68%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
54%
48%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
59%
Return points won·Even
36%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
57%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.9
3.8
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.2
3.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 148). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rune H.Fanselow S.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
91
4
Break points saved·Dominant
99
31
Break points won·Dominant
84
5
Deciding sets·Dominant
98
22
Tiebreaks·Dominant
99
51

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
Fanselow S.
4.7
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 49 days (−0.7)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.7
Surface form
3.8
Fatigue & Travel
0.9
Minutes 14d
0.0
3-set count
9.0
Prev. match
Surface transition
6.0
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.

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