Taro Daniel vs Emilio Nava — San Diego Round of 32

San Diego · ATP · Round of 32
Taro Daniel
JPN
Taro Daniel
#203ATP
1567ELO
1512Hard ELO
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 19 September 2022
hard
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#86ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
Daniel T.
6-4 6-3
Nava E.
Daniel T.
662
Nava E.
430

Taro Daniel defeated Emilio Nava 6-4 6-3 in the San Diego round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #86, leading the head-to-head 2–1. Taro Daniel narrowed the head-to-head to 2–2.

Key context

  • Match story: Taro Daniel closed it out in two sets, 6–4 6–3.

Head to head

1–2
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-05-08Rome MastersQ1clayEmilio Nava0-6 6-2 6-4
2022-08-22Winston-SalemQ2hardEmilio Nava6-4 3-6 7-5
2022-03-07Indian Wells MastersQ1hardTaro Daniel7-5 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Daniel T.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Nava E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Daniel T.

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

Daniel T.Nava E.
—
Serve
39
—
Return
21

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

Statistics

This season
Daniel T.Nava E.
1st serve in·Even
60%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
50%
Service points won·Even
62%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
62%
64%
Aces / match·Dominant
4.0
7.7
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.1
3.0

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Daniel T.Nava E.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
42
52
Break points saved·Even
93
94
Break points won·Clear edge
37
17
Deciding sets·Dominant
16
89
Tiebreaks·Dominant
81
23

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Daniel T.
4.7
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Nava E.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
3.3Hard Elo 1512
Surface ELO
6.7+109 Hard Elo edge
2.5Overall Elo 1567
ELO gap
7.5Overall Elo 1704
4.6
H2H
5.4
4.3
Surface form
5.8
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.7
3-set count
7.0
6.0
Prev. match
6.0
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
Daniel T.Nava E.
Freshness·Dominant
67
95

Daniel T.: 1 day rest · 3 matches, 61 games (7d) · Nava E.: 12 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Nakashima B.[5]
Giron M.[3]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Giron M.[3]
Evans D.[1]
6-37-5
Nakashima B.[5]
Oconnell C.
6-47-63
Quarter-finals
Evans D.[1]
Lestienne C.
6-16-3
Nakashima B.[5]
Galan D.
6-34-66-4
Oconnell C.
Brooksby J.[2]
6-44-67-5
Giron M.[3]
Duckworth J.[7]
7-656-3
R16
Evans D.[1]
Daniel T.
6-46-4
Nakashima B.[5]
Kudla D.
6-36-4
Galan D.
Martinez P.[4]
5-76-16-4
Brooksby J.[2]
Mcdonald M.
6-43-66-2
Lestienne C.
Tabilo A.[6]
6-16-3
Giron M.[3]
Etcheverry T.
6-46-3
Duckworth J.[7]
Krueger M.
6-37-64
Oconnell C.
Wolf J.[8]
6-37-5
R32
Oconnell C.
Kubler J.
4-66-30-0
Lestienne C.
Holt B.
5-77-656-3
Etcheverry T.
Mena F.
7-666-3
Duckworth J.[7]
Popyrin A.
7-54-66-1
Kudla D.
Verdasco F.
6-36-3
Galan D.
Huesler M.
6-37-5
Nakashima B.[5]
Svajda Z.
7-57-65
Mcdonald M.
Laaksonen H.
6-06-2
Daniel T.
Nava E.
6-46-3
Krueger M.
Eubanks C.
6-46-4
Wolf J.[8]
Kozlov S.
6-27-66
Tabilo A.[6]
Johnson S.
7-56-2