Marius Copil vs Gilles Simon — Barletta CH Round of 32

Barletta CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
ROU
Marius Copil
35 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 11 April 2022
clay
FRA1
Gilles Simon
41 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWLLWL
Copil M.
6-2 4-6 6-4
Simon G.
Copil M.
6462
Simon G.
2641

Marius Copil defeated Gilles Simon 6-2 4-6 6-4 in the Barletta CH round of 32 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Gilles Simon came in leading the head-to-head 2–1. Marius Copil narrowed the head-to-head to 2–2.

Key context

  • Match story: Marius Copil closed it out in three sets, 6–2 4–6 6–4.

Head to head

1–2
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2019-09-16MetzR32hardGilles Simon6-3 6-4
2018-01-15Australian OpenR128hardGilles Simon7-5 6-4 6-3
2013-12-29BrisbaneR16hardMarius Copil7-5 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Copil M.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Simon G.

Simon G.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Copil 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
Copil M.Simon G.
1st serve in·Even
59%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
76%
66%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
48%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
60%
Return points won·Slight edge
35%
40%
Break points saved·Slight edge
62%
56%
Aces / match·Dominant
8.4
3.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.9
2.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (114 vs 53). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Copil M.Simon G.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
47
74
Break points saved·Even
91
94
Break points won·Dominant
3
68
Deciding sets·Slight edge
63
73
Tiebreaks·Even
79
82

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Copil M.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Simon G.
5.3
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
1.7
Surface form
2.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
7.3
Minutes 14d
8.2
4.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
4.0
6.0
Surface transition
6.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Borges N.[2]
Zekic M.
6-37-5
Semi-finals
Borges N.[2]
Kolar Z.[3]
7-676-3
Zekic M.
Nardi L.
6-747-57-62
Quarter-finals
Borges N.[2]
Darderi L.
1-67-646-1
Zekic M.
Shevchenko A.
6-46-4
Kolar Z.[3]
Sels J.
5-77-56-1
Nardi L.
Blancaneaux G.
6-26-4
R16
Shevchenko A.
Bonadio R.
3-67-663-0
Nardi L.
Copil M.
W/O
Darderi L.
Couacaud E.[6]
4-67-616-2
Kolar Z.[3]
Pellegrino A.
6-36-2
Sels J.
Fatic N.
5-76-17-5
Zekic M.
Passaro F.
2-67-6106-0
Blancaneaux G.
Arnaldi M.
6-36-4
Borges N.[2]
Ovcharenko O.
7-636-4
R32
Bonadio R.
Rodionov J.[4]
6-06-2
Borges N.[2]
Droguet T.
6-16-4
Ovcharenko O.
Rosol L.
7-52-66-3
Couacaud E.[6]
Giustino L.
6-46-4
Kolar Z.[3]
Forti F.
6-26-0
Sels J.
Lestienne C.[7]
5-76-46-0
Passaro F.
Agamenone F.[5]
6-46-3
Zekic M.
Arnaboldi A.
2-66-46-0
Arnaldi M.
Zeppieri G.
0-67-647-64
Nardi L.
Muller A.
6-16-4
Pellegrino A.
Gerch L.
2-66-36-3
Darderi L.
Karlovskiy E.
6-736-36-3
Shevchenko A.
Svrcina D.
2-66-06-2
Fatic N.
Barrere G.
6-36-3
Blancaneaux G.
Zuk K.[8]
6-46-746-3
Copil M.
Simon G.[1]
6-24-66-4