Casper Ruud vs Botic Van De Zandschulp — Rome Masters Round of 32

Rome Masters · ATP · Round of 32
Casper Ruud
NOR5
Casper Ruud
#13ATP
1983ELO
1973Clay ELO
$2.0MYTD
$29MCAREER
27 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWLWWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 9 May 2022
clay
Botic Van De Zandschulp
NED
Botic Van De Zandschulp
#55ATP
1743ELO
1690Clay ELO
$690kYTD
$6.6MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLW
Ruud C.
6-7 6-2 6-4
Van De Zandschulp B.
Ruud C.
64662
Van De Zandschulp B.
77241

Casper Ruud defeated Botic Van De Zandschulp 6-7 6-2 6-4 in the Rome Masters round of 32 on clay. The result followed the form book — Casper Ruud came in ranked #13. Casper Ruud narrowed the head-to-head to 3–3.

Key context

Head to head

2–3
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2024-04-01EstorilR16clayCasper Ruud6-1 6-2
2023-04-10Monte Carlo MastersR32clayCasper Ruud7-5 7-6(1)
2023-03-20Miami MastersR32hardBotic Van De Zandschulp3-6 6-4 6-4
2022-04-25MunichQFclayBotic Van De Zandschulp7-5 6-1
2021-08-30US OpenR64hardBotic Van De Zandschulp3-6 6-4 6-3 6-4
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Ruud C.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

Van De Zandschulp B.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Ruud C.

Serve advantage — Ruud C.

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

Ruud C.Van De Zandschulp B.
54
Serve
33
69
Return
74

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

Statistics

This season
Ruud C.Van De Zandschulp B.
1st serve in·Even
65%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
71%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
54%
47%
Service points won·Even
66%
62%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
66%
60%
Aces / match·Even
5.7
5.6
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.3
3.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Ruud C.Van De Zandschulp B.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
91
77
Break points saved·Even
99
98
Break points won·Slight edge
75
68
Deciding sets·Clear edge
99
79
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
97
81

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Ruud C.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Van De Zandschulp B.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
7.8+283 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.2Clay Elo 1690
7.1Overall Elo 1983
ELO gap
2.9Overall Elo 1743
0.0
H2H
10.0
5.4
Surface form
6.7
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
6.3
Minutes 14d
2.2
4.0
3-set count
4.0
7.0
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
Ruud C.Van De Zandschulp B.
Freshness·Slight edge
98
91

Ruud C.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Van De Zandschulp B.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Weather
23°CClear
Wind 4 km/hHumidity 45%
Final
Djokovic N.[1]
Tsitsipas S.[4]
6-07-65
Semi-finals
Tsitsipas S.[4]
Zverev A.[2]
4-66-36-3
Djokovic N.[1]
Ruud C.[5]
6-46-3
Quarter-finals
Tsitsipas S.[4]
Sinner J.[10]
7-656-2
Djokovic N.[1]
Auger Aliassime F.[8]
7-57-61
Ruud C.[5]
Shapovalov D.[13]
7-677-5
Zverev A.[2]
Garin C.
7-56-2
R16
Djokovic N.[1]
Wawrinka S.
6-26-2
Auger Aliassime F.[8]
Giron M.
6-36-2
Shapovalov D.[13]
Nadal R.[3]
1-67-56-2
Ruud C.[5]
Brooksby J.
6-36-4
Sinner J.[10]
Krajinovic F.
6-27-66
Tsitsipas S.[4]
Khachanov K.
4-66-06-3
Garin C.
Cilic M.
6-34-66-4
Zverev A.[2]
De Minaur A.
6-37-65
R32
Zverev A.[2]
Baez S.
7-666-3
Djokovic N.[1]
Karatsev A.
6-36-2
Wawrinka S.
Djere L.
7-683-66-4
Giron M.
Schwartzman D.[12]
6-17-64
Auger Aliassime F.[8]
Davidovich Fokina A.
4-67-626-2
Nadal R.[3]
Isner J.
6-36-1
Shapovalov D.[13]
Basilashvili N.
6-47-65
Brooksby J.
Goffin D.
6-07-61
Ruud C.[5]
Van De Zandschulp B.
6-746-26-4
Krajinovic F.
Rublev A.[6]
6-26-4
Sinner J.[10]
Fognini F.
6-23-66-3
Khachanov K.
Carreno Busta P.[15]
6-42-66-1
Tsitsipas S.[4]
Dimitrov G.
6-35-77-64
Garin C.
Ruusuvuori E.
6-46-4
Cilic M.
Norrie C.[9]
5-76-26-1
De Minaur A.
Paul T.
7-56-4
R64
Goffin D.
Hurkacz H.[11]
7-687-62
Krajinovic F.
Tiafoe F.
7-677-64
Isner J.
Cerundolo F.
6-46-3
Garin C.
Passaro F.
6-36-2
Djere L.
Coric B.
6-26-736-2
Carreno Busta P.[15]
Delbonis F.
6-36-2
Karatsev A.
Harris L.
3-66-37-67
Wawrinka S.
Opelka R.[14]
3-67-56-2
Schwartzman D.[12]
Kecmanovic M.
6-23-67-63
Giron M.
Bublik A.
3-66-46-3
Davidovich Fokina A.
Ivashka I.
6-24-66-4
Basilashvili N.
Evans D.
7-626-2
Shapovalov D.[13]
Sonego L.
7-653-66-3
Brooksby J.
Cobolli F.
6-36-4
Van De Zandschulp B.
Korda S.
6-46-1
Fognini F.
Thiem D.
6-47-65
Sinner J.[10]
Martinez P.
6-46-3
Khachanov K.
Zeppieri G.
6-36-4
Dimitrov G.
Nakashima B.
6-36-4
Cilic M.
Arnaldi M.
6-16-4
Norrie C.[9]
Nardi L.
6-46-4
De Minaur A.
Lajovic D.
6-46-1
Paul T.
Ramos A.
6-46-4
Baez S.
Griekspoor T.
6-36-776-2