Emilio Nava vs Paul Jubb — El Espinar CH Round of 32

El Espinar CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 25 July 2022
hard
GBR
Paul Jubb
#338ATP
1426ELO
1403Hard ELO
26 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWWLWLW
Nava E.
7-6 6-2
Jubb P.
Nava E.
7762
Jubb P.
6520

Emilio Nava defeated Paul Jubb 7-6 6-2 in the El Espinar CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91.

Key context

  • Match story: Emilio Nava closed it out in two sets, 7–6 6–2.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Jubb P.

Jubb P.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Even 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

Serve & return on hard

Nava E.Jubb P.
40
Serve
—
16
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Jubb P.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
62%
Return points won·Even
37%
40%
Break points saved·Even
64%
61%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.7
4.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.0
3.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 158). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Jubb P.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
38
Break points saved·Slight edge
94
84
Break points won·Slight edge
17
6
Deciding sets·Dominant
89
44
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
73

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Jubb P.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.7+218 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.3Hard Elo 1403
8.4Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
1.6Overall Elo 1426
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.3
Surface form
5.7
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
6.0
Minutes 14d
7.9
4.0
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
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
Nava E.Jubb P.
Freshness·Even
100
100

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Jubb P.: 20 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Grenier H.[4]
Lestienne C.[2]
7-56-3
Semi-finals
Lestienne C.[2]
Geerts M.
2-67-57-64
Grenier H.[4]
Humbert U.[5]
6-757-56-2
Quarter-finals
Humbert U.[5]
Borges N.[1]
7-666-4
Grenier H.[4]
Barrere G.[8]
6-26-2
Lestienne C.[2]
Lock B.
7-684-66-3
Geerts M.
Nava E.
6-46-4
R16
Lock B.
Marchenko I.
7-662-66-3
Humbert U.[5]
Masur D.
6-36-3
Nava E.
Verdasco F.[3]
7-687-5
Geerts M.
Yevseyev D.
6-46-3
Barrere G.[8]
Bellier A.
6-46-4
Grenier H.[4]
Kuhn N.
6-46-4
Borges N.[1]
Kachmazov A.
6-16-2
Lestienne C.[2]
Escoffier A.
6-36-3
R32
Lock B.
Celikbilek A.[6]
6-06-2
Verdasco F.[3]
Moriya H.
6-46-2
Geerts M.
Popko D.[7]
6-46-4
Barrere G.[8]
Karlovskiy E.
6-16-3
Kuhn N.
Menendez Maceiras A.
6-26-4
Kachmazov A.
Istomin D.
0-66-47-64
Nava E.
Jubb P.
7-656-2
Marchenko I.
Kuznetsov A.
6-746-16-3
Bellier A.
Alvarez Varona N.
5-77-56-1
Masur D.
Donskoy E.
6-46-4
Yevseyev D.
Rincon D.
6-25-76-3
Grenier H.[4]
Moro Canas A.
6-46-3
Borges N.[1]
Basic M.
6-36-3
Humbert U.[5]
Decamps G.
6-36-4
Escoffier A.
Porras J.
6-26-3
Lestienne C.[2]
Barroso Campos A.
4-66-26-4