Clement Tabur vs Tristan Lamasine — Prague CH Qualifying Round 2
Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 2
#178ATP
1607ELO
1553Clay ELO
$199kYTD
$640kCAREER
26 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWLLWWLWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 2 May 2022
clay
Tabur C.2-6 6-4 6-4
Lamasine T.
Tabur C.
2662
Lamasine T.
6441
Clement Tabur defeated Tristan Lamasine 2-6 6-4 6-4 in the Prague CH qualifying round 2 on clay.
Key context
- Match story: Clement Tabur dropped the opening set before beating Tristan Lamasine 2–6 6–4 6–4.
Head to head
No previous meetings on record.
Serve vs return
This seasonServe advantage — Tabur C.
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 season1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
48%
Service points won·Even
62%
61%
Return points won·Even
40%
39%
Break points saved·Even
59%
55%
Aces / match·Even
3.2
2.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.9
3.0
Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (189 vs 128). ATP, WTA & Challenger.
Clutch
Under pressureClutch Rating·Slight edge
30
21
Break points saved·Dominant
74
38
Break points won·Slight edge
23
17
Deciding sets·Clear edge
33
51
Tiebreaks·Even
45
43
Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About
Umpiry Score
Pre-match5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limitedForm & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H5.0
Surface form
2.3
0.0
Win streakFatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.3
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
Surface transitionContext
5.0
Defending pts5.0
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 loadFreshness·
69
—
Tabur C.: 1 day rest · 3 matches, 68 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About
Conditions
Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Q2
Tiurnev E.[10]
Kamke T.[3]
6-34-66-4
Nava E.[8]
Fayziev S.
6-36-1
Krutykh O.[5]
Paulson A.
6-45-76-4
Moro Canas A.
Bachinger M.[4]
6-46-3
Miedler L.[2]
Fanselow S.
6-46-3
Ionel N.[7]
Lamasine T.[1]
6-46-2
Rosol L.[2]
Yevseyev D.[11]
5-76-26-4
Michalski D.[6]
Kamke T.[7]
W/O
Gerch L.[12]
Uchida K.[5]
6-36-1
Tabur C.
Lamasine T.[8]
2-66-46-4
Oliel Y.[10]
Moeller M.
W/O
Donati M.
Purcell M.[1]
6-46-4
Domingues J.[1]
Lamasine T.[12]
6-26-1
Cuevas M.[6]
Forti F.[8]
6-43-66-3
Menendez Maceiras A.[5]
Jecan M.
6-26-4
Cornea V.
Paul J.[11]
6-26-1
Krumich M.[9]
Paulson A.[3]
7-57-5
Vrbensky M.[2]
Gill F.[10]
6-06-4
Q1
Nava E.[8]
Nicod J.
7-53-66-4
Kamke T.[3]
Gengel M.
6-16-4
Lamasine T.[1]
Heller P.
6-27-5
Ionel N.[7]
Petr V.
6-06-4
Moro Canas A.
Moeller M.[9]
6-16-4
Fayziev S.
Kirkin E.[6]
6-46-3
Fanselow S.
Erler A.[12]
6-17-5
Miedler L.[2]
Molleker R.
7-57-63
Nava E.
Nicod J.
7-53-66-4
Paulson A.
Rosenkranz M.[11]
6-04-66-4
Krutykh O.[5]
Donald M.
6-36-4
Bachinger M.[4]
Siniakov D.
6-46-3
Tiurnev E.[10]
Poljak D.
6-36-3
Donati M.
Bachinger M.[9]
3-67-56-1
Kamke T.[7]
Gengel M.
6-41-67-5
Michalski D.[6]
Fayziev S.
5-76-26-1
Lamasine T.[8]
Mensik J.
6-00-0
Gerch L.[12]
Virtanen O.
5-76-36-1
Uchida K.[5]
Donald M.
6-26-0
Tabur C.
Soeda G.[4]
6-26-4
Oliel Y.[10]
De Schepper K.
6-35-77-5
Moeller M.
Sels J.[3]
1-66-46-1
Yevseyev D.[11]
Velik L.
6-36-1
Rosol L.[2]
Vrbensky M.
7-56-3
Purcell M.[1]
Damm M.
6-26-4
Forti F.[8]
Nicod J.
6-46-3
Jecan M.
Palosi S.[7]
6-36-4
Vrbensky M.[2]
Havlicek M.
6-15-76-2
Krumich M.[9]
Li H.
6-36-2
Lamasine T.[12]
Karol M.
6-26-3
Paulson A.[3]
Cuenin S.
6-16-3
Cuevas M.[6]
Jenicek J.
7-54-66-1
Forti F.
Nicod J.
6-46-3
Menendez Maceiras A.[5]
Donald M.
6-46-0
Paul J.[11]
Siniakov D.
6-47-5
Cornea V.
Mpetshi Perricard G.[4]
6-734-0
Gill F.[10]
Nejedly P.
7-56-3