Filip Misolic vs Chun Hsin Tseng — Antalya 3 CH Round of 32

Antalya 3 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Filip Misolic
AUT
Filip Misolic
#293ATP
1587ELO
1664Clay ELO
$111kYTD
$1.2MCAREER
24 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWWLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 29 November 2021
clay
Chun Hsin Tseng
TPE5
Chun Hsin Tseng
#234ATP
1554ELO
1541Clay ELO
$99kYTD
$1.7MCAREER
24 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWLWLW
Misolic F.
6-2 5-7 7-6
Tseng C.
Misolic F.
65792
Tseng C.
27671

Filip Misolic defeated Chun Hsin Tseng 6-2 5-7 7-6 in the Antalya 3 CH round of 32 on clay.

Key context

  • Match story: Filip Misolic closed it out in three sets, 6–2 5–7 7–6.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Misolic F.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Tseng C.

Tseng C.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Misolic F.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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
Misolic F.Tseng C.
1st serve in·Even
59%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
39%
Break points saved·Even
61%
61%
Aces / match·Even
3.2
3.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.5
2.2

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Misolic F.Tseng C.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
79
26
Break points saved·Slight edge
91
83
Break points won·Dominant
53
15
Deciding sets·Dominant
94
31
Tiebreaks·Dominant
97
23

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Misolic F.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Tseng C.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.7+123 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.3Clay Elo 1541
5.7Overall Elo 1587
ELO gap
4.3Overall Elo 1554
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.6
Surface form
6.1
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.7
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
6.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Borges N.[6]
Peniston R.
6-46-3
Semi-finals
Peniston R.
Barranco Cosano J.
6-47-62
Borges N.[6]
Esteve Lobato E.
6-36-3
Quarter-finals
Esteve Lobato E.
Ramanathan R.[2]
6-26-0
Borges N.[6]
Hardt N.
6-26-4
Peniston R.
Ajdukovic D.[4]
6-25-77-62
Barranco Cosano J.
Jianu F.
6-14-66-4
R16
Esteve Lobato E.
Misolic F.
6-26-3
Borges N.[6]
Erel Y.
6-46-0
Peniston R.
Svrcina D.
2-66-46-2
Ajdukovic D.[4]
Cacao T.
6-26-1
Jianu F.
Blancaneaux G.[7]
6-756-46-0
Barranco Cosano J.
Ilkel C.[1]
7-636-3
Hardt N.
Domingues J.[3]
6-47-5
Ramanathan R.[2]
Crawford O.
7-56-4
R32
Svrcina D.
Oliveira G.[8]
6-40-0
Hardt N.
Dougaz A.
6-26-2
Ramanathan R.[2]
Wessels L.
6-26-3
Crawford O.
Sanchez Izquierdo N.
6-16-3
Esteve Lobato E.
Lee D.
6-26-3
Misolic F.
Tseng C.[5]
6-25-77-67
Peniston R.
Fatic N.
2-66-16-3
Cacao T.
Metreveli A.
6-36-2
Blancaneaux G.[7]
Zekic M.
7-626-3
Ilkel C.[1]
Hsu Y.
6-36-4
Borges N.[6]
Kirkin E.
6-46-3
Barranco Cosano J.
Roca Batalla O.
7-646-4
Domingues J.[3]
Bonadio R.
7-644-66-1
Jianu F.
Veldheer M.
6-16-4
Ajdukovic D.[4]
Chappell N.
6-45-77-5
Erel Y.
Tiurnev E.
7-655-73-3