Enzo Couacaud vs Emilio Gomez — Canberra CH Round of 32

Canberra CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
FRA
Enzo Couacaud
31 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWLLLWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Sunday, 1 January 2023
hard
ECU2
Emilio Gomez
34 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLWLLW
Couacaud E.
7-5 7-5
Gomez E.
Couacaud E.
772
Gomez E.
550

Enzo Couacaud defeated Emilio Gomez 7-5 7-5 in the Canberra CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Enzo Couacaud came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Enzo Couacaud extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2022-06-27WimbledonQ1grassEnzo Couacaud6-2 5-7 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Couacaud E.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Gomez E.

Gomez E.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Couacaud E.

Serve advantage — Couacaud E.

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
Couacaud E.Gomez E.
1st serve in·Even
56%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
74%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
46%
Service points won·Even
63%
59%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
59%
59%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.4
3.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.3
3.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (119 vs 55). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Couacaud E.Gomez E.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
47
32
Break points saved·Even
79
77
Break points won·Slight edge
29
19
Deciding sets·Dominant
77
23
Tiebreaks·Dominant
29
79

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Couacaud E.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 55 days (−0.7)
Gomez E.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 41 days (−0.7)
Form & Matchup
0.0
H2H
10.0
6.2
Surface form
6.3
0.0
Win streak
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Fucsovics M.[1]
Riedi L.
7-56-4
Semi-finals
Riedi L.
Struff J.
7-665-76-2
Fucsovics M.[1]
Watanuki Y.
6-27-5
Quarter-finals
Fucsovics M.[1]
Polmans M.
3-66-47-5
Struff J.
Couacaud E.
6-46-2
Watanuki Y.
Gombos N.[4]
7-56-4
Riedi L.
Broady L.
5-76-46-4
R16
Struff J.
Muller A.
6-36-736-4
Riedi L.
Gaston H.[3]
6-46-2
Couacaud E.
Mccabe J.
6-16-1
Gombos N.[4]
Kovalik J.
6-37-64
Polmans M.
Sweeny D.
7-57-62
Fucsovics M.[1]
Arnaldi M.
6-23-66-1
Broady L.
Nardi L.
6-756-46-1
Watanuki Y.
Rodionov J.[7]
6-45-77-66
R32
Riedi L.
Jarry N.
7-647-65
Nardi L.
Klein L.
7-56-2
Broady L.
Passaro F.[6]
6-37-62
Kovalik J.
Klahn B.
6-43-67-61
Watanuki Y.
Van Assche L.
4-66-46-3
Mccabe J.
Agamenone F.
6-36-1
Muller A.
Nava E.
6-06-4
Struff J.
Delbonis F.[8]
6-34-66-0
Gaston H.[3]
Vukic A.
6-37-65
Rodionov J.[7]
Brouwer G.
2-67-677-67
Sweeny D.
Kotov P.[5]
6-46-1
Polmans M.
Krueger M.
6-36-4
Arnaldi M.
Shevchenko A.
6-46-1
Fucsovics M.[1]
Maestrelli F.
6-26-3
Couacaud E.
Gomez E.[2]
7-57-5
Gombos N.[4]
Misolic F.
7-666-4