Camilo Ugo Carabelli vs Facundo Mena — Lima CH Quarter-final

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG3
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#58ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 8 August 2022
clay
Facundo Mena
ARG5
Facundo Mena
#331ATP
1427ELO
1406Clay ELO
33 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLLWLWLL
Ugo Carabelli C.
7-6 6-1
Mena F.
Ugo Carabelli C.
7762
Mena F.
6410

Camilo Ugo Carabelli defeated Facundo Mena 7-6 6-1 in the Lima CH quarter-final on clay. The result followed the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #58, leading the head-to-head 1–0. Camilo Ugo Carabelli extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Camilo Ugo Carabelli came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 7–6 6–1.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-02-06CordobaQ1clayCamilo Ugo Carabelli6-3 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Mena F.

Mena F.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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

Ugo Carabelli C.Mena F.
24
Serve
—
36
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.Mena F.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
55%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
50%
Service points won·Even
60%
62%
Return points won·Even
41%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
2.7
5.5
Double faults / match·Even
2.4
2.6

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Ugo Carabelli C.Mena F.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
78
9
Break points saved·Dominant
90
57
Break points won·Dominant
62
7
Deciding sets·Dominant
96
28
Tiebreaks·Dominant
72
10

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Ugo Carabelli C.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Mena F.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
9.2+335 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
0.8Clay Elo 1406
9.0Overall Elo 1759
ELO gap
1.0Overall Elo 1427
0.0
H2H
10.0
4.5
Surface form
6.6
0.0Lost last 3
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
9.1
Minutes 14d
8.8
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
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
Ugo Carabelli C.Mena F.
Freshness·Dominant
98
66

Ugo Carabelli C.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Mena F.: 3 days rest · 3 matches, 88 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Tirante T.[7]
6-27-64
Altmaier D.[4]
Etcheverry T.[2]
6-16-746-4
Semi-finals
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Etcheverry T.[1]
6-33-67-5
Tirante T.[7]
Bueno G.
7-654-67-5
Etcheverry T.[2]
Burruchaga R.
6-23-66-3
Altmaier D.[4]
Coria F.[1]
6-36-3
Quarter-finals
Tirante T.[7]
Varillas J.[2]
6-46-3
Bueno G.
Elias G.[8]
2-67-626-0
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Mena F.[5]
7-646-1
Etcheverry T.[1]
Olivo R.[6]
7-656-727-5
Coria F.[1]
Mpetshi Perricard G.
7-647-65
Etcheverry T.[2]
Meligeni Alves F.
7-56-2
Altmaier D.[4]
Rodriguez Taverna S.
3-67-56-2
Burruchaga R.
Milojevic N.
7-632-66-4
R16
Tirante T.[7]
Chappell N.
6-46-0
Mena F.[5]
Huertas Del Pino A.
6-36-2
Varillas J.[2]
Otegui J.
6-16-2
Bueno G.
Burruchaga R.
7-57-5
Etcheverry T.[1]
Quiroz R.
6-26-3
Elias G.[8]
Buse I.
7-656-1
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Hoyos Franco A.
6-16-1
Olivo R.[6]
Panta Herreros J.
6-16-4
Altmaier D.[4]
Agamenone F.
7-53-66-3
Burruchaga R.
Tirante T.
3-66-26-4
Coria F.[1]
Buse I.
6-44-66-2
Rodriguez Taverna S.
Skatov T.[8]
6-26-2
Meligeni Alves F.
Melzer G.
6-36-1
Milojevic N.
Cecchinato M.[3]
2-66-46-4
Etcheverry T.[2]
Olivieri G.
6-34-66-1
Mpetshi Perricard G.
Ugo Carabelli C.[6]
7-57-5
R32
Otegui J.
Carou I.
6-36-746-1
Varillas J.[2]
Boscardin Dias P.
6-36-2
Chappell N.
Kypson P.
7-57-5
Bueno G.
Ficovich J.[4]
7-56-3
Mena F.[5]
Farjat T.
7-56-0
Hoyos Franco A.
Ballotta G.
7-646-4
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Mejia N.
6-26-3
Olivo R.[6]
Dutra Da Silva D.
3-66-37-63
Quiroz R.
Luz O.
3-66-46-2
Etcheverry T.[1]
Gomez J.
6-26-3
Huertas Del Pino A.
Krstin P.
7-644-66-1
Panta Herreros J.
Alvarez N.
6-27-5
Buse I.
Ribeiro E.
6-06-2
Elias G.[8]
Juarez F.
7-623-67-5
Tirante T.[7]
Huertas Del Pino C.
6-36-2
Burruchaga R.
Villanueva G.
6-26-3
Melzer G.
Varillas J.[5]
6-36-4
Etcheverry T.[2]
Choinski J.
6-46-2
Meligeni Alves F.
Comesana F.
6-26-0
Altmaier D.[4]
Kicker N.
5-77-56-4
Buse I.
Dutra Da Silva D.
6-21-66-3
Coria F.[1]
Houkes M.
6-36-3
Tirante T.
Zekic M.
6-46-4
Rodriguez Taverna S.
Casanova H.
6-36-4
Milojevic N.
Alvarez N.
6-35-76-1
Olivieri G.
Seyboth Wild T.
6-17-61
Agamenone F.
Collarini A.
6-46-2
Skatov T.[8]
Bueno G.
6-46-1
Mpetshi Perricard G.
Olivo R.
4-66-36-2
Cecchinato M.[3]
De Jong J.
6-37-66
Ugo Carabelli C.[6]
Navone M.
6-26-3
Burruchaga R.
Reis Da Silva J.
6-767-626-3