Elmar Ejupovic vs Tennys Sandgren — Rome GA CH Round of 32

Rome GA CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
GER
Elmar Ejupovic
#752ATP
33 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLLW
0 — 0
Sets
Retired
Monday, 20 February 2023
hard
USA6
Tennys Sandgren
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
Ejupovic E.
6-4 3-2
Sandgren T.
Ejupovic E.
63–
Sandgren T.
42–

Elmar Ejupovic advanced when Tennys Sandgren retired 6-4 3-2 in the Rome GA CH round of 32.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Ejupovic E.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Sandgren T.

Sandgren T.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Ejupovic E.

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

Statistics

This season
Ejupovic E.Sandgren T.
1st serve in·Even
64%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
76%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
49%
Service points won·Even
65%
65%
Return points won·Even
34%
36%
Break points saved·Even
64%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.8
9.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.4
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (82 vs 71). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Ejupovic E.Sandgren T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
7
36
Break points saved·Even
88
92
Break points won·Even
1
2
Deciding sets·Dominant
0
28
Tiebreaks·Dominant
3
86

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Ejupovic E.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Sandgren T.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
4.8
Surface form
6.8
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.7
Minutes 14d
7.8
7.0
3-set count
4.0
6.0
Prev. match
8.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Thompson J.[1]
Michelsen A.
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Thompson J.[1]
Svajda Z.
7-637-65
Michelsen A.
Hong S.[8]
4-67-56-1
Quarter-finals
Hong S.[8]
Kodat T.
4-66-36-4
Michelsen A.
Leshem E.
7-56-3
Svajda Z.
Ejupovic E.
6-13-66-3
Thompson J.[1]
Gray A.
6-46-2
Hong S.
Kodat T.
4-66-36-4
R16
Ejupovic E.
Harrison R.
3-67-656-2
Michelsen A.
Moraing M.
6-743-1
Svajda Z.
Vukic A.[3]
6-36-3
Kodat T.
Shimabukuro S.
6-43-67-5
Gray A.
Kypson P.
7-636-3
Thompson J.[1]
Squire H.
6-46-1
Hong S.[8]
Decamps G.
6-16-0
Leshem E.
Ponwith N.
6-36-2
Kodat T.
Shimabukuro S.
6-43-67-5
R32
Ejupovic E.
Sandgren T.[6]
6-43-2
Kodat T.
Couacaud E.[4]
6-46-3
Vukic A.[3]
Blanch U.
6-33-66-1
Moraing M.
Harrison C.
1-66-46-3
Svajda Z.
Wong C.
6-36-1
Squire H.
Rincon D.
6-46-2
Thompson J.[1]
Dougaz A.
6-36-4
Michelsen A.
Koepfer D.[7]
6-36-1
Ponwith N.
Hijikata R.[2]
6-46-756-3
Kypson P.
Smith K.
6-17-64
Shimabukuro S.
Fanselow S.
2-66-36-3
Harrison R.
Marchenko I.
6-33-66-3
Gray A.
Galarneau A.[5]
6-46-4
Leshem E.
Mochizuki S.
6-746-36-2
Decamps G.
Cukierman D.
6-16-2
Kodat T.
Couacaud E.
6-46-3