Daniel Cox vs Federico Gaio — Nottingham CH Round of 32

Nottingham CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
GBR
Daniel Cox
35 yrs · 170 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWLWLWLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 6 June 2022
grass
ITA
Federico Gaio
34 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWWLWLLL
Cox D.
2-6 6-4 6-3
Gaio F.
Cox D.
2662
Gaio F.
6431

Daniel Cox defeated Federico Gaio 2-6 6-4 6-3 in the Nottingham CH round of 32 on grass. The upset overturned the form book — Federico Gaio came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Daniel Cox claimed a first win over Federico Gaio in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-07-03WimbledonQ1grassFederico Gaio2-6 7-6(2) 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Cox D.serving84% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Gaio F.

Gaio F.serving84% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Cox D.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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
Cox D.Gaio F.
1st serve in·Even
60%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
62%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Even
56%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
3.5
4.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.8
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (38 vs 127). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Cox D.Gaio F.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
30
20
Break points saved·Clear edge
52
76
Break points won·Clear edge
27
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
67
40
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
14
7

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Cox D.
4.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 1799 days (−1.5)
Gaio F.
5.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
3.2
Surface form
4.0
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
9.0
Prev. match
8.0
Surface transition
3.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Evans D.[1]
Thompson J.[3]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Thompson J.[3]
Popyrin A.[5]
6-46-2
Evans D.[1]
Sock J.[7]
7-56-3
Quarter-finals
Thompson J.[3]
Kukushkin M.
6-24-66-3
Sock J.[7]
Broady L.
7-631-66-4
Evans D.[1]
Huesler M.[8]
6-46-4
Popyrin A.[5]
Peniston R.
6-36-4
R16
Peniston R.
Gojo B.
6-47-64
Popyrin A.[5]
Escoffier A.
6-37-5
Kukushkin M.
Verdasco F.[6]
6-36-726-4
Thompson J.[3]
Clarke J.
6-46-4
Evans D.[1]
Fabbiano T.
7-56-0
Sock J.[7]
Blancaneaux G.
6-04-66-2
Broady L.
Virtanen O.
2-67-56-2
Huesler M.[8]
Cox D.
6-24-66-2
R32
Peniston R.
Vesely J.[2]
6-777-657-66
Popyrin A.[5]
Lacko L.
6-46-2
Gojo B.
Jung J.
6-27-63
Escoffier A.
Pouille L.
5-76-46-4
Clarke J.
Jubb P.
6-36-2
Kukushkin M.
Copil M.
6-46-4
Sock J.[7]
Squire H.
6-27-67
Blancaneaux G.
Ramanathan R.
7-637-5
Virtanen O.
Millman J.[4]
7-656-3
Cox D.
Gaio F.
2-66-46-3
Evans D.[1]
Couacaud E.
7-57-63
Thompson J.[3]
Bellier A.
6-36-4
Fabbiano T.
Ajdukovic D.
4-67-636-4
Broady L.
Lestienne C.
6-44-66-3
Huesler M.[8]
Escobedo E.
6-46-4
Verdasco F.[6]
Gray A.
7-637-66