Nerman Fatic vs Riccardo Bonadio — Sibiu CH Round of 32

Sibiu CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 19 September 2022
clay
ITA5
Riccardo Bonadio
33 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWWWLW
Fatic N.
6-3 6-3
Bonadio R.
Fatic N.
662
Bonadio R.
330

Nerman Fatic defeated Riccardo Bonadio 6-3 6-3 in the Sibiu CH round of 32 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Riccardo Bonadio came in defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Bonadio R.

Bonadio R.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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

Statistics

This season
Fatic N.Bonadio R.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
51%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.0
2.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.4
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (188 vs 155). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Bonadio R.
Clutch Rating·Even
24
26
Break points saved·Slight edge
63
70
Break points won·Clear edge
36
19
Deciding sets·Clear edge
24
44
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
17

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Bonadio R.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
6.4
Surface form
5.7
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.1
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Final
Fatic N.
Dzumhur D.[6]
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Dzumhur D.[6]
Ionel N.
0-67-666-3
Fatic N.
Coria F.[1]
4-66-46-3
Quarter-finals
Ionel N.
Misolic F.[2]
6-26-3
Dzumhur D.[6]
Klein L.
7-696-1
Fatic N.
Gakhov I.
6-46-0
Coria F.[1]
Valkusz M.
3-0
R16
Ionel N.
Jianu F.
3-66-42-0
Misolic F.[2]
Molleker R.
6-33-66-3
Fatic N.
Wessels L.
6-37-64
Gakhov I.
Fonio G.
6-46-2
Coria F.[1]
Diez S.
7-646-4
Valkusz M.
Milojevic N.[8]
6-16-2
Klein L.
Kolar Z.[3]
7-56-3
Dzumhur D.[6]
Nikles J.
6-46-3
R32
Valkusz M.
Copil M.
7-637-64
Misolic F.[2]
Choinski J.
6-33-66-2
Molleker R.
Harris B.
6-46-2
Klein L.
Cornea V.
6-27-5
Fatic N.
Bonadio R.[5]
6-36-3
Wessels L.
Bellucci M.
4-66-36-4
Fonio G.
Madaras D.
6-16-4
Milojevic N.[8]
Van Assche L.
7-51-66-2
Diez S.
Basic M.
6-16-3
Jianu F.
Kravchenko G.
2-66-17-63
Gakhov I.
Tirante T.[4]
6-757-56-1
Coria F.[1]
Ramanathan R.
6-26-1
Ionel N.
Coppejans K.[7]
6-36-1
Nikles J.
Wehnelt K.
6-47-5
Dzumhur D.[6]
Horansky F.
6-36-2
Kolar Z.[3]
Dima D.
6-26-3