Arthur Cazaux vs Tennys Sandgren — Nonthaburi 2 CH Quarter-final

Nonthaburi 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Arthur Cazaux
FRA
Arthur Cazaux
#98ATP
1793ELO
1738Hard ELO
$46kYTD
$2.3MCAREER
23 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLWWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 9 January 2023
hard
USA8
Tennys Sandgren
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
Cazaux A.
6-3 6-3
Sandgren T.
Cazaux A.
662
Sandgren T.
330

Arthur Cazaux defeated Tennys Sandgren 6-3 6-3 in the Nonthaburi 2 CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Arthur Cazaux came in defending the title.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Cazaux A.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Sandgren T.

Sandgren T.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Cazaux A.

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 hard

Cazaux A.Sandgren T.
40
Serve
—
19
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Cazaux A.Sandgren T.
1st serve in·Even
59%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
75%
76%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Even
66%
66%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Slight edge
66%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.7
9.1
Double faults / match·Even
2.2
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (198 vs 71). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Cazaux A.Sandgren T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
65
36
Break points saved·Slight edge
97
92
Break points won·Dominant
27
2
Deciding sets·Dominant
87
28
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
70
86

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Cazaux A.
5.3
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 56 days (−0.7)
Sandgren T.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.8
Surface form
5.4
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.7
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
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
Cazaux A.
Harris L.[2]
7-656-2
Semi-finals
Cazaux A.
Novak D.[1]
6-44-66-2
Harris L.[2]
Jung J.
6-16-4
Quarter-finals
Jung J.
Donskoy E.
4-67-56-3
Harris L.[2]
Michalski D.[6]
6-46-3
Cazaux A.
Sandgren T.[8]
6-36-3
Novak D.[1]
Gengel M.
6-36-3
R16
Harris L.[2]
Moraing M.
6-16-3
Jung J.
Zhukayev B.
6-47-63
Sandgren T.[8]
Hassan B.
6-31-67-66
Donskoy E.
Uchiyama Y.
6-47-63
Michalski D.[6]
Travaglia S.
7-647-68
Novak D.[1]
Royer V.
6-26-3
Gengel M.
Geerts M.[5]
2-67-607-5
Cazaux A.
Gunneswaran P.
6-757-646-3
R32
Zhukayev B.
Trongcharoenchaikul W.
7-627-65
Royer V.
Harris B.
6-10-0
Harris L.[2]
Samrej K.
6-16-2
Moraing M.
Mukund S.
6-46-4
Travaglia S.
Arnaboldi A.
6-757-56-3
Donskoy E.
Yevseyev D.
6-47-61
Jung J.
Shimabukuro S.[7]
6-46-1
Hassan B.
Ayeni O.
7-57-5
Gunneswaran P.
Kolar Z.[4]
6-36-3
Geerts M.[5]
Kovapitukted P.
6-16-3
Gengel M.
Moriya H.
6-16-2
Novak D.[1]
Squire H.
6-37-67
Uchiyama Y.
Zuk K.[3]
6-26-1
Cazaux A.
Fonio G.
6-46-4
Sandgren T.[8]
Added D.
2-67-626-4
Michalski D.[6]
Mochizuki S.
3-67-56-3