Nerman Fatic vs Julian Lenz — Ismaning CH Round of 32

Ismaning CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH7
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 10 October 2022
hard
GER
Julian Lenz
33 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWWWWWLWW
Fatic N.
7-5 6-3
Lenz J.
Fatic N.
762
Lenz J.
530

Nerman Fatic defeated Julian Lenz 7-5 6-3 in the Ismaning CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Julian Lenz came in defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

  • Match story: Nerman Fatic closed it out in two sets, 7–5 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Lenz J.

Lenz J.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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

Statistics

This season
Fatic N.Lenz J.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
56%
Aces / match·Clear edge
3.9
5.6
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.4
4.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (188 vs 31). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Lenz J.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
24
12
Break points saved·Clear edge
63
40
Break points won·Clear edge
36
13
Deciding sets·Clear edge
24
39
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
23

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
Lenz J.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.9
Surface form
4.7
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.9
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
7.0
Surface transition
6.0
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Halys Q.[1]
Rehberg M.
7-666-3
Semi-finals
Halys Q.[1]
Zuk K.
7-657-64
Rehberg M.
Pospisil V.[3]
6-47-62
Quarter-finals
Pospisil V.[3]
Sachko V.
6-31-0
Rehberg M.
Ejupovic E.
7-687-64
Halys Q.[1]
Gray A.
6-46-737-64
Zuk K.
Yevseyev D.
6-43-66-3
R16
Gray A.
Fatic N.[7]
7-636-1
Pospisil V.[3]
Forejtek J.
7-656-4
Sachko V.
Masur D.[5]
6-16-736-3
Rehberg M.
Haase R.
6-37-67
Zuk K.
Decamps G.
6-16-4
Ejupovic E.
Klein L.
3-66-37-5
Yevseyev D.
Yunchaokete B.
6-17-65
Halys Q.[1]
Ramanathan R.
7-623-67-5
R32
Forejtek J.
Topo M.
6-23-66-3
Ramanathan R.
Harris B.
7-646-757-65
Rehberg M.
Machac T.[2]
6-36-4
Haase R.
Kolar Z.
6-47-66
Ejupovic E.
Bellier A.[6]
5-77-636-3
Sachko V.
Moraing M.
6-26-4
Masur D.[5]
Karlovskiy E.
6-46-3
Zuk K.
Escoffier A.[8]
6-43-66-4
Decamps G.
Bachinger M.
6-01-66-4
Yunchaokete B.
Hassan B.
7-626-2
Fatic N.[7]
Lenz J.
7-56-3
Gray A.
Horansky F.
6-36-4
Halys Q.[1]
Geerts M.
7-686-4
Klein L.
Virtanen O.
6-16-4
Pospisil V.[3]
Florig P.
6-36-2
Yevseyev D.
Novak D.[4]
7-657-64