Nerman Fatic vs Lucas Miedler — Manama CH Round of 32

Manama CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 22 November 2021
hard
AUT
Lucas Miedler
#1536ATP
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLWLL
Fatic N.
6-3 6-3
Miedler L.
Fatic N.
662
Miedler L.
330

Nerman Fatic defeated Lucas Miedler 6-3 6-3 in the Manama CH round of 32 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Miedler L.

Miedler L.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Even serve battle

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
Fatic N.Miedler L.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
59%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.1
4.8
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.4
1.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 105). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Miedler L.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
24
13
Break points saved·Clear edge
63
78
Break points won·Dominant
36
10
Deciding sets·Clear edge
24
9
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
18

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Miedler L.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.2
Surface form
5.2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
6.4
Minutes 14d
5.6
7.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Ramanathan R.[6]
Karlovskiy E.
6-16-4
Semi-finals
Ramanathan R.[6]
Clarke J.[7]
5-76-36-2
Karlovskiy E.
Erel Y.
3-67-666-3
Quarter-finals
Clarke J.[7]
Lazarov A.
6-21-0
Karlovskiy E.
Borges N.
7-656-3
Erel Y.
Peniston R.
2-66-37-5
Ramanathan R.[6]
Oliveira G.
6-34-67-5
R16
Borges N.
Ilkel C.[2]
6-36-1
Peniston R.
Blancaneaux G.
6-36-4
Clarke J.[7]
Viola M.
6-26-1
Ramanathan R.[6]
Ajdukovic D.
6-26-4
Karlovskiy E.
Haerteis J.
6-36-1
Erel Y.
Moriya H.
6-35-76-2
Lazarov A.
Fatic N.
6-37-63
Oliveira G.
Escoffier A.
7-653-66-4
R32
Fatic N.
Miedler L.
6-36-3
Borges N.
Jianu F.
6-37-66
Ilkel C.[2]
Kirkin E.
6-46-2
Haerteis J.
Erler A.
6-36-4
Peniston R.
Oconnell C.[4]
6-756-37-64
Blancaneaux G.
Marrero Curbelo I.
6-36-2
Erel Y.
Gunneswaran P.[5]
6-36-3
Ajdukovic D.
Mukund S.
6-46-4
Escoffier A.
Neuchrist M.
6-36-4
Oliveira G.
Gengel M.
6-46-4
Ramanathan R.[6]
Orlov V.
6-26-4
Lazarov A.
Celikbilek A.[3]
6-26-3
Karlovskiy E.
Basic M.[8]
6-26-3
Viola M.
Hsu Y.
6-47-5
Moriya H.
Virtanen O.
6-36-2
Clarke J.[7]
Abdulnabi H.
6-06-0