Charles Broom vs Eduardo Nava — Charlottesville CH Qualifying Round 1

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
GBR5
Charles Broom
#283ATP
1409ELO
1396Hard ELO
28 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWLWWLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 31 October 2022
hard
USA
Eduardo Nava
29 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWWWWLLLL
Broom C.
7-6 6-7 6-4
Nava E.
Broom C.
776362
Nava E.
647741

Charles Broom defeated Eduardo Nava 7-6 6-7 6-4 in the Charlottesville CH qualifying round 1 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Broom C.serving81% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Nava E.serving71% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Broom C.

Serve advantage — Broom C.

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
Broom C.Nava E.
1st serve in·Even
62%
58%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
70%
63%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
47%
Service points won·Slight edge
62%
56%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Even
58%
58%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.2
4.7
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.9
5.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (144 vs 6). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Broom C.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Nava E.
3.8
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 49 days (−0.7)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.0
Surface form
0.0
0.0Lost last 5
Win streak
0.0Lost last 5
Fatigue & Travel
7.0
Prev. match
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
Broom C.Nava E.
Freshness·
77
—

Broom C.: 1 day rest · 1 match, 30 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Q2
Ponwith N.
Broom C.[5]
6-22-66-2
Rodesch C.
Smith K.[1]
6-46-4
Cassone M.
Kirchheimer S.[9]
4-66-36-1
Leshem E.[4]
Damm M.
6-46-4
Mchugh A.[3]
Kingsley C.[11]
5-77-657-67
Blanch U.[2]
Young D.[12]
6-04-1
Q1
Cassone M.
Chappell N.[6]
7-56-3
Kirchheimer S.[9]
Goetz R.
6-46-4
Mchugh A.[3]
Ross G.
6-34-66-4
Kingsley C.[11]
Farren C.
6-16-4
Blanch U.[2]
Vale D.
6-16-2
Rodesch C.
Clark E.[7]
7-646-3
Damm M.
Brymer G.[8]
6-37-64
Young D.
Mccormick T.
6-46-3
Ponwith N.
Holmgren A.[10]
7-672-66-3
Smith K.[1]
Von Der Schulenburg J.
6-27-5
Young D.[12]
Mccormick T.
6-46-3
Broom C.[5]
Nava E.
7-646-736-4
Leshem E.[4]
Rodenas P.
7-666-1