Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard vs Camilo Ugo Carabelli — Lima CH Round of 16

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard
FRA
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard
#83ATP
1738ELO
1673Clay ELO
$499kYTD
$3.5MCAREER
23 yrs · 203 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 24 October 2022
clay
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG6
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#59ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
Mpetshi Perricard G.
7-5 7-5
Ugo Carabelli C.
Mpetshi Perricard G.
772
Ugo Carabelli C.
550

Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard defeated Camilo Ugo Carabelli 7-5 7-5 in the Lima CH round of 16 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #59, leading the head-to-head 1–0. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard claimed a first win over Camilo Ugo Carabelli in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2026-03-18Miami MastersR128hardCamilo Ugo Carabelli2-6 6-3 7-6(3)

Serve vs return

This season
Mpetshi Perricard G.serving84% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Ugo Carabelli C.serving87% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Mpetshi Perricard G.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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

Mpetshi Perricard G.Ugo Carabelli C.
—
Serve
24
—
Return
36

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

Statistics

This season
Mpetshi Perricard G.Ugo Carabelli C.
1st serve in·Even
64%
62%
1st serve points won·Clear edge
80%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
70%
60%
Return points won·Clear edge
29%
41%
Break points saved·Slight edge
69%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
15.1
2.7
Double faults / match·Dominant
4.3
2.4

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Mpetshi Perricard G.Ugo Carabelli C.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
65
78
Break points saved·Slight edge
98
90
Break points won·Dominant
1
62
Deciding sets·Even
95
96
Tiebreaks·Dominant
97
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Mpetshi Perricard G.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry Score
Ugo Carabelli C.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.0Clay Elo 1673
Surface ELO
6.0+68 Clay Elo edge
4.5Overall Elo 1738
ELO gap
5.5Overall Elo 1759
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.0
Surface form
5.7
Fatigue & Travel
4.7
Minutes 14d
7.0
7.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Mpetshi Perricard G.Ugo Carabelli C.
Freshness·Even
94
97

Mpetshi Perricard G.: 11 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Ugo Carabelli C.: 12 days rest · 1 match (14d). 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