Matteo Viola vs Lukas Rosol — Forli 3 CH Round of 32

Forli 3 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
ITA
Matteo Viola
39 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 6 December 2021
hard
CZE
Lukas Rosol
40 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLLLLLLLL
Viola M.
7-6 4-6 7-5
Rosol L.
Viola M.
77472
Rosol L.
61651

Matteo Viola defeated Lukas Rosol 7-6 4-6 7-5 in the Forli 3 CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Lukas Rosol came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Matteo Viola claimed a first win over Lukas Rosol in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2013-02-25DubaiR32hardLukas Rosol6-3 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Viola M.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Rosol L.

Rosol L.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Viola M.

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
Viola M.Rosol L.
1st serve in·Even
65%
61%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
63%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
45%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
57%
62%
Return points won·Even
40%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
53%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
1.4
4.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.7
3.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (63 vs 113). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Viola M.Rosol L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
8
51
Break points saved·Dominant
20
89
Break points won·Clear edge
25
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
15
78
Tiebreaks·Even
70
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Viola M.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Rosol L.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
4.6
Surface form
5.7
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
6.3
Minutes 14d
8.7
7.0
3-set count
7.0
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Kotov P.
Arnaboldi A.[8]
6-46-3
Semi-finals
Arnaboldi A.[8]
Nardi L.
4-66-36-4
Kotov P.
Sachko V.[6]
6-44-0
Quarter-finals
Kotov P.
Basic M.[5]
6-26-3
Nardi L.
Setkic A.
6-06-4
Arnaboldi A.[8]
Pervolarakis M.
6-46-3
Sachko V.[6]
Cressy M.[1]
7-647-62
R16
Sachko V.[6]
Capecchi D.
6-746-16-2
Nardi L.
Vatutin A.
7-666-4
Pervolarakis M.
Baldi F.
6-46-4
Basic M.[5]
Miedler L.
6-26-3
Cressy M.[1]
Gigante M.
7-636-2
Setkic A.
Viola M.
6-16-3
Arnaboldi A.[8]
Brouwer G.
6-44-67-5
Kotov P.
Smith K.
7-56-2
R32
Arnaboldi A.[8]
Brancaccio R.
6-24-1
Kotov P.
Bergs Z.[4]
7-56-757-5
Setkic A.
Gaio F.[2]
7-56-2
Vatutin A.
Copil M.
6-746-36-3
Nardi L.
Vavassori A.[7]
6-46-2
Baldi F.
Caruso S.[3]
6-26-3
Pervolarakis M.
Potenza L.
6-36-4
Brouwer G.
Lenz J.
6-26-3
Miedler L.
Poljak D.
5-76-46-3
Smith K.
Vacherot V.
7-56-4
Sachko V.[6]
Erler A.
3-66-26-2
Capecchi D.
Lock B.
6-36-1
Gigante M.
Gengel M.
6-23-66-2
Viola M.
Rosol L.
7-614-67-5
Cressy M.[1]
Sels J.
6-36-2
Basic M.[5]
Danilov S.
6-36-4