Emilio Nava vs Zsombor Piros — Forli 4 CH Round of 32

Forli 4 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 14 February 2022
hard
Zsombor Piros
HUN
Zsombor Piros
#120ATP
1661ELO
1629Hard ELO
$145kYTD
$975kCAREER
26 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWWWWWWWW
Nava E.
4-6 6-4 6-0
Piros Z.
Nava E.
4662
Piros Z.
6401

Emilio Nava defeated Zsombor Piros 4-6 6-4 6-0 in the Forli 4 CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Piros Z.

Piros Z.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Nava 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

Serve & return on hard

Nava E.Piros Z.
40
Serve
—
16
Return
—

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the hard field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Piros Z.
1st serve in·Even
63%
59%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
53%
Service points won·Even
64%
61%
Return points won·Even
37%
40%
Break points saved·Even
64%
61%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.7
3.1
Double faults / match·Even
3.0
2.7

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Piros Z.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
52
57
Break points saved·Slight edge
94
84
Break points won·Clear edge
17
32
Deciding sets·Even
89
85
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
48

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Piros Z.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
  • Injury return: 35 days (−1.0)
Form & Matchup
4.6Hard Elo 1621
Surface ELO
5.4+8 Hard Elo edge
4.9Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
5.1Overall Elo 1661
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.0
Surface form
7.9
Fatigue & Travel
6.3
Minutes 14d
4.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Nava E.Piros Z.
Freshness·Dominant
100
54

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Piros Z.: 2 days rest · 5 matches, 107 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Draper J.
Van Rijthoven T.
6-16-2
Semi-finals
Van Rijthoven T.
Borges N.[4]
6-46-2
Draper J.
Watanuki Y.
6-34-66-3
Quarter-finals
Watanuki Y.
Barrere G.[3]
7-56-3
Van Rijthoven T.
Haase R.
6-46-3
Borges N.[4]
Lestienne C.
6-36-3
Draper J.
Furness E.
6-26-3
R16
Haase R.
Nava E.
7-56-2
Borges N.[4]
Pellegrino A.
6-16-4
Lestienne C.
Napolitano S.
7-54-66-4
Watanuki Y.
Marterer M.
5-76-26-3
Draper J.
Halys Q.[1]
7-646-4
Van Rijthoven T.
Schnur B.
7-657-5
Barrere G.[3]
Hassan B.
6-13-0
Furness E.
Torpegaard M.
6-14-3
R32
Furness E.
Hoang A.
7-657-64
Haase R.
Moriya H.
7-626-3
Nava E.
Piros Z.
4-66-46-0
Schnur B.
Gigante M.
6-43-66-1
Van Rijthoven T.
Uchiyama Y.[6]
6-27-61
Borges N.[4]
Giustino L.
7-646-3
Marterer M.
Serdarusic N.
6-756-47-62
Barrere G.[3]
Zeppieri G.
6-36-4
Torpegaard M.
Moroni G.[5]
7-642-67-66
Lestienne C.
Arnaldi M.
6-25-76-2
Napolitano S.
Elias G.[8]
6-16-4
Watanuki Y.
De Jong J.[7]
6-26-4
Pellegrino A.
Domingues J.
6-16-3
Halys Q.[1]
Sachko V.
6-17-63
Draper J.
Basic M.
6-26-2
Hassan B.
Bemelmans R.
6-46-4