Marek Gengel vs Ruben Bemelmans — Biel CH Round of 32

Biel CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Marek Gengel
CZE
Marek Gengel
#373ATP
1411ELO
1377Hard ELO
30 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWWLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 21 March 2022
hard
BEL
Ruben Bemelmans
38 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLWLLW
Gengel M.
7-6 7-6
Bemelmans R.
Gengel M.
77772
Bemelmans R.
64630

Marek Gengel defeated Ruben Bemelmans 7-6 7-6 in the Biel CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Ruben Bemelmans came in defending last year's round of 32, but Marek Gengel had been the form player, winning 5 of their last 6 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Gengel M.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Bemelmans R.

Bemelmans R.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Gengel M.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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
Gengel M.Bemelmans R.
1st serve in·Even
63%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
46%
50%
Service points won·Even
60%
64%
Return points won·Even
38%
34%
Break points saved·Slight edge
56%
62%
Aces / match·Even
4.9
4.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.8
1.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (130 vs 17). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Gengel M.Bemelmans R.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
11
16
Break points saved·Dominant
35
87
Break points won·Even
11
7
Deciding sets·Dominant
53
17
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
4
9

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Gengel M.
3.8
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 105 days (−1.5)
Bemelmans R.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.0
Surface form
4.3
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Prev. match
7.0
Surface transition
6.0
Context
6.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Rodionov J.
Zuk K.
7-636-4
Semi-finals
Rodionov J.
Horansky F.
0-66-46-4
Zuk K.
Stricker D.[3]
6-36-4
Quarter-finals
Rodionov J.
Riedi L.
6-46-4
Horansky F.
Gengel M.
6-46-3
Stricker D.[3]
Van Rijthoven T.[8]
6-47-5
Zuk K.
Escoffier A.
7-626-2
R16
Horansky F.
Feldbausch K.
7-667-65
Escoffier A.
Copil M.
6-43-67-63
Stricker D.[3]
Kovacevic A.
6-47-63
Van Rijthoven T.[8]
Karlovskiy E.
6-27-5
Rodionov J.
Sels J.
6-46-4
Riedi L.
Virtanen O.
6-46-4
Gengel M.
Gojo B.
7-664-66-1
Zuk K.
Kotov P.[5]
6-46-4
R32
Virtanen O.
Moriya H.
7-686-4
Zuk K.
Soeda G.
6-36-2
Stricker D.[3]
Sugita Y.
7-656-1
Sels J.
Masur D.[6]
6-34-66-3
Rodionov J.
Setkic A.
6-36-4
Riedi L.
Brouwer G.
1-66-36-4
Feldbausch K.
Huesler M.[7]
7-56-0
Horansky F.
Kym J.
6-36-3
Gojo B.
Herbert P.[1]
6-706-36-3
Karlovskiy E.
Schnur B.
6-756-37-5
Van Rijthoven T.[8]
Kravchenko G.
7-647-5
Kotov P.[5]
Peniston R.
7-676-4
Escoffier A.
Novak D.[2]
6-46-2
Copil M.
Menendez Maceiras A.
6-26-3
Kovacevic A.
Li Z.
7-56-3
Gengel M.
Bemelmans R.
7-647-63