Holger Rune vs Nerman Fatic — Sanremo CH Round of 16

Sanremo CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Holger Rune
DEN1
Holger Rune
#81ATP
1757ELO
1729Clay ELO
$0YTD
$16MCAREER
23 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 4 April 2022
clay
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
Rune H.
6-3 6-2
Fatic N.
Rune H.
662
Fatic N.
320

Holger Rune defeated Nerman Fatic 6-3 6-2 in the Sanremo CH round of 16 on clay. The result followed the form book — Holger Rune came in ranked #81.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Rune H.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Fatic N.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Rune H.

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
Rune H.Fatic N.
1st serve in·Even
62%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
68%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
54%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
61%
Return points won·Even
36%
39%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.8
4.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.2
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 188). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rune H.Fatic N.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
91
24
Break points saved·Dominant
99
63
Break points won·Dominant
84
36
Deciding sets·Dominant
98
24
Tiebreaks·Dominant
99
35

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rune H.
5.3
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Fatic N.
5.2
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
8.4+250 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
1.6Clay Elo 1478
8.6Overall Elo 1757
ELO gap
1.4Overall Elo 1496
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.1
Surface form
6.1
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.6
Prev. match
7.0
6.0
Surface transition
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
Rune H.[1]
Passaro F.
6-12-66-4
Semi-finals
Passaro F.
Mager G.[2]
6-16-1
Rune H.[1]
Arnaboldi A.
6-46-1
Quarter-finals
Mager G.[2]
Fabbiano T.[7]
6-46-3
Arnaboldi A.
Vatutin A.
6-23-67-67
Rune H.[1]
Gigante M.
6-36-0
Passaro F.
Valkusz M.
4-66-36-2
R16
Gigante M.
Martineau M.
6-37-5
Mager G.[2]
Karlovskiy E.
6-16-4
Fabbiano T.[7]
Sachko V.
7-53-67-5
Valkusz M.
Albot R.[3]
6-31-66-2
Passaro F.
Muller A.[8]
6-16-2
Vatutin A.
Zekic M.
5-76-26-4
Rune H.[1]
Fatic N.
6-36-2
Arnaboldi A.
Bonadio R.
4-66-26-3
R32
Zekic M.
Herbert P.[4]
4-66-36-3
Mager G.[2]
Forti F.
6-26-4
Karlovskiy E.
Vacherot V.
6-16-757-62
Albot R.[3]
Sultanov K.
6-23-66-1
Passaro F.
Gojo B.
6-46-2
Muller A.[8]
Miedler L.
6-36-4
Arnaboldi A.
Grenier H.[5]
6-36-2
Gigante M.
Cobolli F.[6]
2-66-46-3
Fatic N.
Zeppieri G.
6-46-2
Rune H.[1]
Tiurnev E.
6-37-612
Valkusz M.
Donati M.
6-16-2
Bonadio R.
Arnaldi M.
7-57-5
Vatutin A.
Haase R.
7-52-66-2
Sachko V.
Lavagno E.
6-36-4
Fabbiano T.[7]
Sels J.
7-51-66-2
Martineau M.
Blancaneaux G.
6-34-0