Enzo Couacaud vs Max Purcell — Bengaluru 1 CH Round of 16

Bengaluru 1 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
FRA6
Enzo Couacaud
31 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWLLLWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 7 February 2022
hard
AUS
Max Purcell
28 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLWW
Couacaud E.
6-4 3-6 6-2
Purcell M.
Couacaud E.
6362
Purcell M.
4621

Enzo Couacaud defeated Max Purcell 6-4 3-6 6-2 in the Bengaluru 1 CH round of 16 on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Enzo Couacaud closed it out in three sets, 6–4 3–6 6–2.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Couacaud E.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Purcell M.

Purcell M.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Couacaud E.

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
Couacaud E.Purcell M.
1st serve in·Even
56%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
51%
Service points won·Even
63%
64%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
60%
62%
Aces / match·Slight edge
6.6
7.5
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.1
1.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (184 vs 187). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Couacaud E.Purcell M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
47
59
Break points saved·Clear edge
79
92
Break points won·Clear edge
29
10
Deciding sets·Slight edge
77
84
Tiebreaks·Dominant
29
81

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Couacaud E.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Purcell M.
6.6
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.8
Surface form
5.7
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
8.3
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
8.0
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
Tseng C.
Gojo B.
6-47-5
Semi-finals
Tseng C.
Couacaud E.[6]
7-56-4
Gojo B.
Muller A.
4-66-36-0
Quarter-finals
Couacaud E.[6]
Vesely J.[1]
6-40-0
Muller A.
Ilkel C.
6-47-67
Tseng C.
Decamps G.
6-46-4
Gojo B.
Coppejans K.
7-56-4
R16
Couacaud E.[6]
Purcell M.
6-43-66-2
Muller A.
Kuzmanov D.
7-646-4
Decamps G.
Moroni G.
6-25-77-63
Tseng C.
Grenier H.[4]
6-16-4
Vesely J.[1]
Gunneswaran P.
3-66-26-1
Coppejans K.
Celikbilek A.[5]
7-6126-3
Ilkel C.
Donskoy E.
2-66-37-5
Gojo B.
Vukic A.[3]
7-56-3
R32
Decamps G.
Gaio F.[8]
6-36-3
Gunneswaran P.
Bourgue M.
7-646-2
Kuzmanov D.
Dev S.
6-26-2
Donskoy E.
Jaziri M.
7-6106-4
Gojo B.
Noguchi R.
3-66-16-2
Celikbilek A.[5]
Kadhe A.
6-16-2
Moroni G.
Myneni S.
6-16-1
Tseng C.
Clarke J.
6-36-1
Grenier H.[4]
Kopriva V.
6-12-66-4
Vesely J.[1]
Bellier A.
6-36-726-2
Vukic A.[3]
Kubler J.
7-56-4
Purcell M.
Ramanathan R.
3-66-07-5
Muller A.
Travaglia S.[2]
6-17-62
Couacaud E.[6]
Reddy R.
6-16-3
Coppejans K.
Polmans M.
1-66-26-4
Ilkel C.
Diez S.
6-26-3