Clement Tabur vs Vit Kopriva — Prague CH Round of 16

Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Clement Tabur
FRA
Clement Tabur
#178ATP
1607ELO
1553Clay ELO
$199kYTD
$640kCAREER
26 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWLLWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 May 2022
clay
Vit Kopriva
CZE4
Vit Kopriva
#64ATP
1740ELO
1699Clay ELO
$805kYTD
$2.4MCAREER
29 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWLLWLW
Tabur C.
6-2 6-4
Kopriva V.
Tabur C.
662
Kopriva V.
240

Clement Tabur defeated Vit Kopriva 6-2 6-4 in the Prague CH round of 16 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Vit Kopriva came in ranked #64, but Clement Tabur had been the form player, winning 3 of their last 5 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Tabur C.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Kopriva V.

Kopriva V.serving66% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Tabur C.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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 clay

Tabur C.Kopriva V.
—
Serve
19
—
Return
54

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

Statistics

This season
Tabur C.Kopriva V.
1st serve in·Even
61%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
48%
Service points won·Even
62%
60%
Return points won·Even
40%
41%
Break points saved·Even
59%
60%
Aces / match·Even
3.2
3.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.9
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (189 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Tabur C.Kopriva V.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
32
72
Break points saved·Slight edge
74
83
Break points won·Dominant
23
66
Deciding sets·Dominant
40
90
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
45
61

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tabur C.
3.4
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 98 days (−1.5)
Kopriva V.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Form & Matchup
2.7Clay Elo 1553
Surface ELO
7.3+146 Clay Elo edge
3.3Overall Elo 1607
ELO gap
6.7Overall Elo 1740
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
Surface form
5.4
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Prev. match
9.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Tabur C.Kopriva V.
Freshness·Dominant
55
88

Tabur C.: 1 day rest · 4 matches, 100 games (7d) · Kopriva V.: 1 day rest · 1 match, 16 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Ofner S.
Svrcina D.
6-06-4
Cachin P.[5]
Giustino L.
6-37-64
Krutykh O.[2]
Gerch L.
6-36-726-2
Semi-finals
Svrcina D.
Machac T.[6]
W/O
Ofner S.
Tseng C.[3]
7-51-66-1
Cachin P.[5]
Blancaneaux G.
2-66-26-3
Giustino L.
Kuzmanov D.
7-644-66-2
Gerch L.
Domingues J.
6-44-66-3
Krutykh O.[2]
Mensik J.
7-56-3
Quarter-finals
Ofner S.
Forejtek J.
6-27-65
Tseng C.[3]
Barranco Cosano J.
2-66-37-63
Machac T.[6]
Rosol L.
7-636-0
Svrcina D.
Giustino L.
6-04-1
Blancaneaux G.
Tabur C.
6-06-1
Cachin P.[5]
Fabbiano T.
6-36-3
Giustino L.
Gaio F.[8]
6-33-67-67
Kuzmanov D.
Marterer M.
6-16-0
Krutykh O.[2]
Moreno De Alboran N.[8]
6-43-67-68
Gerch L.
Gigante M.
7-56-2
Domingues J.
Navone M.
7-636-3
Mensik J.
Cuevas M.
7-56-2
R16
Forejtek J.
Altmaier D.[1]
6-16-4
Rosol L.
Moraing M.[2]
4-66-36-4
Machac T.[6]
Furness E.
3-67-656-4
Svrcina D.
Krutykh O.
6-36-4
Barranco Cosano J.
Novak D.[5]
7-692-66-3
Ofner S.
Rodionov J.[8]
6-17-66
Giustino L.
Nava E.
5-77-657-64
Tseng C.[3]
Miedler L.
6-26-2
Marterer M.
Krumich M.
6-36-1
Giustino L.
Donati M.
6-16-3
Blancaneaux G.
Rosol L.
1-66-27-63
Fabbiano T.
Peniston R.
6-14-66-0
Gaio F.[8]
Forejtek J.
7-652-67-5
Tabur C.
Kopriva V.[4]
6-26-4
Kuzmanov D.
Borges N.[2]
6-17-5
Cachin P.[5]
Furness E.
6-06-3
Moreno De Alboran N.[8]
Collignon R.
7-55-77-5
Cuevas M.
Gengel M.
6-06-1
Mensik J.
Rosol L.
6-26-4
Navone M.
Squire H.[5]
7-56-1
Gigante M.
Vrbensky M.
6-26-3
Krutykh O.[2]
Nouza P.
6-36-4
Domingues J.
Sachko V.[3]
7-57-5
Gerch L.
Andreev A.
6-46-4
R32
Furness E.
Muller A.
6-23-0
Tseng C.[3]
Moro Canas A.
6-46-4
Barranco Cosano J.
Domingues J.
6-21-66-2
Moraing M.[2]
Marterer M.
6-43-67-611
Nava E.
Pouille L.[4]
6-36-1
Novak D.[5]
Karlovskiy E.
7-646-766-4
Miedler L.
Lamasine T.
2-66-26-3
Rodionov J.[8]
Haase R.
6-16-4
Altmaier D.[1]
Krumich M.
5-77-56-4
Giustino L.
Peniston R.
6-26-3
Forejtek J.
Tiurnev E.
6-36-756-4
Ofner S.
Lestienne C.
6-26-2
Krutykh O.
Popko D.[9]
6-46-1
Svrcina D.
Ionel N.
6-36-4
Rosol L.
Horansky F.
7-656-1
Machac T.[6]
Vrbensky M.
6-33-1
Rosol L.
Sachko V.
6-30-0
Marterer M.
Paulson A.
7-627-66
Borges N.[2]
Bonadio R.
6-26-4
Forejtek J.
Gerch L.
7-54-66-3
Blancaneaux G.
Ficovich J.[7]
6-46-3
Tabur C.
Purcell M.
6-46-3
Peniston R.
Vukic A.[1]
6-16-3
Donati M.
Uchida K.
2-66-46-3
Fabbiano T.
Oliel Y.
2-66-36-2
Kopriva V.[4]
Basic M.
6-36-2
Kuzmanov D.
Marchenko I.
6-16-3
Cachin P.[5]
Svrcina D.
6-36-1
Gaio F.[8]
Michalski D.
6-36-1
Giustino L.
Copil M.
3-67-627-5
Krumich M.
De Jong J.[6]
7-667-66
Furness E.
Ofner S.
7-633-2
Krutykh O.[2]
Copil M.
6-14-67-65
Collignon R.
Gautier A.
6-46-1
Cuevas M.
Krumich M.
2-66-36-3
Squire H.[5]
Neumayer L.
6-16-4
Navone M.
Fils A.
6-46-1
Domingues J.
Vocel M.
6-36-1
Sachko V.[3]
Dellien Velasco M.
6-26-1
Gerch L.
Ilkel C.[7]
6-46-2
Vrbensky M.
De Schepper K.
7-57-65
Gigante M.
Burruchaga R.
7-652-66-2
Moreno De Alboran N.[8]
Moro Canas A.
6-33-67-5
Gengel M.
Roca Batalla O.[4]
6-46-746-3
Andreev A.
Rosenkranz M.
6-36-3
Nouza P.
Cornea V.
6-36-736-2
Mensik J.
Menendez Maceiras A.
6-34-0
Rosol L.
Kirkin E.[6]
4-66-47-61