Lukas Rosol vs Michael Vrbensky — Prague CH Qualifying Round 1
Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 May 2022
clay
Rosol L.7-5 6-3
Vrbensky M.
Rosol L.
762
Vrbensky M.
530
Lukas Rosol defeated Michael Vrbensky 7-5 6-3 in the Prague CH qualifying round 1 on clay.
Key context
- Match story: Lukas Rosol closed it out in two sets, 7–5 6–3.
Head to head
No previous meetings on record.
Serve vs return
This seasonEven 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 season1st serve in·Slight edge
61%
56%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
48%
Service points won·Even
62%
59%
Return points won·Even
37%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
59%
Aces / match·Even
4.0
3.5
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.0
3.7
Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (75 vs 152). ATP, WTA & Challenger.
Clutch
Under pressureClutch Rating·Dominant
51
11
Break points saved·Dominant
89
52
Break points won·Slight edge
3
11
Deciding sets·Dominant
77
24
Tiebreaks·Dominant
73
31
Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About
Umpiry Score
Pre-match6.1
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limitedForm & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H5.0
5.2
Surface form3.1
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
5.0
Minutes 14d9.3
4.0
3-set count9.0
Prev. match9.0
Context
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.
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