Emilio Nava vs Facundo Mena — Charlottesville CH Round of 16

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Emilio Nava
USA8
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 31 October 2022
hard
Facundo Mena
ARG
Facundo Mena
#331ATP
1427ELO
1355Hard ELO
33 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLLWLWLL
Nava E.
6-2 6-1
Mena F.
Nava E.
662
Mena F.
210

Emilio Nava defeated Facundo Mena 6-2 6-1 in the Charlottesville CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91, defending last year's quarter-final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Mena F.

Mena F.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Nava E.

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

Nava E.Mena F.
40
Serve
—
16
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Mena F.
1st serve in·Slight edge
63%
55%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
62%
Return points won·Even
37%
39%
Break points saved·Even
64%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.7
5.4
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.0
2.6

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Mena F.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
52
9
Break points saved·Dominant
94
57
Break points won·Slight edge
17
7
Deciding sets·Dominant
89
28
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
23
10

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
7.1
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Mena F.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
8.3+267 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
1.7Hard Elo 1355
8.3Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
1.7Overall Elo 1427
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.6
Surface form
6.0
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
9.2
Minutes 14d
6.2
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
7.0
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
Nava E.Mena F.
Freshness·Dominant
100
70

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Mena F.: 4 days rest · 3 matches, 88 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Shelton B.[6]
Eubanks C.[4]
7-647-5
Semi-finals
Eubanks C.[4]
Nava E.[8]
7-54-66-3
Shelton B.[6]
Jubb P.
7-663-67-5
Quarter-finals
Shelton B.[6]
Gerch L.
6-37-5
Nava E.[8]
Kudla D.[1]
6-26-1
Jubb P.
Montes De La Torre I.
6-36-2
Eubanks C.[4]
Shang J.
4-66-17-68
R16
Jubb P.
Mmoh M.[2]
7-646-3
Gerch L.
Kozlov S.[3]
6-47-63
Shelton B.[6]
Holt B.
6-36-4
Kudla D.[1]
Blanch U.
7-631-66-2
Eubanks C.[4]
Dougaz A.
7-57-68
Montes De La Torre I.
Kovacevic A.[7]
7-646-4
Shang J.
Leshem E.
1-66-36-2
Nava E.[8]
Mena F.
6-26-1
R32
Shelton B.[6]
Rodesch C.
6-46-3
Kudla D.[1]
Fanselow S.
6-46-3
Montes De La Torre I.
Ayeni O.
6-26-2
Holt B.
Sandgren T.
6-13-66-2
Leshem E.
Galarneau A.
7-56-3
Mena F.
Cassone M.
3-66-37-68
Jubb P.
Mchugh A.
6-746-36-3
Kozlov S.[3]
Krueger M.
7-50-67-61
Shang J.
Ficovich J.[5]
6-43-66-3
Dougaz A.
Svajda Z.
3-66-26-1
Mmoh M.[2]
Escobedo E.
7-657-5
Gerch L.
Quinn E.
6-36-3
Eubanks C.[4]
Alvarez Varona N.
6-17-63
Nava E.[8]
Ponwith N.
5-76-26-3
Blanch U.
Mejia N.
6-46-4
Kovacevic A.[7]
Couacaud E.
6-37-69