Jesper De Jong vs Matteo Arnaldi — Rome CH Round of 16

Rome CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Jesper De Jong
NED
Jesper De Jong
#73ATP
1711ELO
1696Clay ELO
$612kYTD
$2.3MCAREER
26 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWLWWWWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 25 April 2022
clay
Matteo Arnaldi
ITA
Matteo Arnaldi
#34ATP
1830ELO
1830Clay ELO
$1.2MYTD
$5.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWWWWWL
De Jong J.
6-1 3-6 6-3
Arnaldi M.
De Jong J.
6362
Arnaldi M.
1631

Jesper De Jong defeated Matteo Arnaldi 6-1 3-6 6-3 in the Rome CH round of 16 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Matteo Arnaldi came in ranked #34, leading the head-to-head 2–0. Jesper De Jong claimed a first win over Matteo Arnaldi in three meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 2–1.

Key context

  • Match story: Jesper De Jong closed it out in three sets, 6–1 3–6 6–3.

Head to head

0–2
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-10-20ViennaQ1hardMatteo Arnaldi6-4 7-6(5)
2023-07-24UmagR32clayMatteo Arnaldi6-3 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
De Jong J.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Arnaldi M.

Arnaldi M.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs De Jong J.

Serve advantage — De Jong J.

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
De Jong J.Arnaldi M.
1st serve in·Even
59%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
63%
62%
Return points won·Even
40%
37%
Break points saved·Even
59%
63%
Aces / match·Even
5.6
5.8
Double faults / match·Even
3.0
3.3

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

Clutch

Under pressure
De Jong J.Arnaldi M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
57
78
Break points saved·Slight edge
90
97
Break points won·Clear edge
37
51
Deciding sets·Clear edge
69
86
Tiebreaks·Dominant
62
99

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
De Jong J.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Arnaldi M.
7.2
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
3.8Clay Elo 1696
Surface ELO
6.2+135 Clay Elo edge
3.8Overall Elo 1711
ELO gap
6.2Overall Elo 1830
5.0
H2H
5.0
4.7
Surface form
8.3
0.0
Win streak
7.03-match win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
0.0
3-set count
0.0
8.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
De Jong J.Arnaldi M.
Freshness·Clear edge
78
97

De Jong J.: 1 day rest · 1 match, 25 games (7d) · Arnaldi M.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Agamenone F.
Moroni G.
6-16-4
Wu Y.
Shelton B.
7-56-3
Semi-finals
Moroni G.
Halys Q.[1]
7-646-3
Agamenone F.
Cobolli F.[3]
6-36-4
Wu Y.
Ficovich J.[4]
6-16-0
Shelton B.
Uchiyama Y.
6-16-3
Quarter-finals
Agamenone F.
Zeppieri G.
7-56-4
Moroni G.
Kirkin E.
6-46-3
Halys Q.[1]
De Jong J.
4-66-47-66
Cobolli F.[3]
De Schepper K.
3-67-656-3
Wu Y.
Wolf J.[2]
6-46-1
Uchiyama Y.
Nishioka Y.[1]
3-67-626-1
Shelton B.
Kovacevic A.
7-627-5
Ficovich J.[4]
Fratangelo B.[7]
6-47-65
R16
Zeppieri G.
Draper J.[2]
6-16-4
Cobolli F.[3]
Fabbiano T.
6-46-746-2
Moroni G.
Yevseyev D.
6-06-1
De Jong J.
Arnaldi M.
6-13-66-3
De Schepper K.
Grenier H.[7]
6-36-3
Kirkin E.
Riedi L.
2-66-36-4
Agamenone F.
Eysseric J.
6-42-67-5
Halys Q.[1]
Geerts M.
7-616-3
Fratangelo B.[7]
Habib H.
6-35-76-2
Kovacevic A.
Kirchheimer S.
6-34-66-4
Uchiyama Y.
Hsu Y.
7-646-2
Wolf J.[2]
Mochizuki S.
6-37-61
Wu Y.
Blanch U.
6-36-4
Shelton B.
Rybakov A.
7-646-3
Nishioka Y.[1]
Galarneau A.
6-46-3
Ficovich J.[4]
Quiroz R.
W/O
R32
Zeppieri G.
Napolitano S.
6-26-2
Eysseric J.
Van Assche L.
6-36-4
Agamenone F.
Guinard M.[6]
6-36-2
Fabbiano T.
Caruso S.
7-53-67-5
Grenier H.[7]
Hoang A.
6-34-66-4
Arnaldi M.
Milojevic N.[5]
2-66-46-0
Geerts M.
Pellegrino A.
4-67-656-2
De Jong J.
Kuznetsov A.
6-26-1
De Schepper K.
Celikbilek A.
6-35-76-4
Cobolli F.[3]
Coric B.
4-66-36-4
Draper J.[2]
Skatov T.
6-26-1
Riedi L.
Serdarusic N.
3-67-56-3
Kirkin E.
Stebe C.
6-47-63
Halys Q.[1]
Couacaud E.
7-6106-4
Moroni G.
Simon G.[8]
6-16-4
Yevseyev D.
Giannessi A.
7-653-2
Galarneau A.
Harris B.
6-26-1
Mochizuki S.
Riffice S.
7-627-62
Rybakov A.
Couacaud E.[8]
6-36-5
Uchiyama Y.
Tu L.
6-36-3
Wolf J.[2]
Shang J.
6-16-2
Blanch U.
Mmoh M.[6]
6-31-66-4
Ficovich J.[4]
Mchugh A.
6-26-2
Fratangelo B.[7]
Pervolarakis M.
6-46-0
Kovacevic A.
Young D.
4-66-26-1
Kirchheimer S.
Gomez E.[3]
6-47-61
Hsu Y.
Gojo B.[5]
6-46-4
Nishioka Y.[1]
Kypson P.
6-26-1
Quiroz R.
Smith K.
4-66-16-1
Shelton B.
Nanda G.
4-66-26-3
Habib H.
Hijikata R.
6-726-37-66
Wu Y.
Jaziri M.
6-44-0