Nerman Fatic vs Evan Furness — Split CH Round of 32

Split CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 10 April 2023
clay
FRA
Evan Furness
27 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWLLWL
Fatic N.
6-3 7-5
Furness E.
Fatic N.
672
Furness E.
350

Nerman Fatic defeated Evan Furness 6-3 7-5 in the Split CH round of 32 on clay. The result followed the form book — Nerman Fatic came in defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

  • Match story: Nerman Fatic closed it out in two sets, 6–3 7–5.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Furness E.

Furness E.serving64% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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
Fatic N.Furness E.
1st serve in·Slight edge
63%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
47%
Service points won·Even
61%
58%
Return points won·Even
39%
39%
Break points saved·Even
59%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.3
3.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.3
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (143 vs 46). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Furness E.
Clutch Rating·Even
24
22
Break points saved·Clear edge
63
47
Break points won·Clear edge
36
18
Deciding sets·Clear edge
24
44
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
49

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Furness E.
4.5
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.3
Surface form
4.7
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.7
Minutes 14d
9.4
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
Surface transition
6.0
Context
6.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Piros Z.
Gombos N.[3]
7-627-69
Semi-finals
Piros Z.
Oconnell C.[1]
6-26-4
Gombos N.[3]
Polmans M.
6-26-4
Quarter-finals
Polmans M.
Misolic F.[6]
6-36-3
Gombos N.[3]
Valkusz M.
7-6106-3
Piros Z.
Albot R.
7-655-76-3
Oconnell C.[1]
Prizmic D.
6-27-5
R16
Polmans M.
Ajdukovic D.
7-657-65
Gombos N.[3]
Zuk K.
6-33-67-66
Piros Z.
Mochizuki S.
6-47-61
Prizmic D.
Cazaux A.
7-56-2
Misolic F.[6]
Ymer E.
4-67-667-61
Valkusz M.
Maestrelli F.
6-21-66-2
Albot R.
Guinard M.
7-56-3
Oconnell C.[1]
Fatic N.
6-16-3
R32
Piros Z.
Marozsan F.[4]
6-36-3
Gombos N.[3]
Cobolli F.
6-13-66-1
Valkusz M.
Klein L.[5]
3-66-37-65
Maestrelli F.
Medjedovic H.
7-636-1
Misolic F.[6]
Ionel N.
6-36-3
Oconnell C.[1]
Sweeny D.
7-656-2
Ajdukovic D.
Ivanovski K.
6-736-16-1
Ymer E.
Coppejans K.
3-66-36-3
Zuk K.
Navone M.
6-47-68
Albot R.
Uchida K.[8]
6-17-5
Guinard M.
Debru G.
4-66-26-4
Cazaux A.
Bellucci M.[7]
6-37-5
Prizmic D.
Rodriguez Taverna S.
4-66-36-4
Fatic N.
Furness E.
6-37-5
Mochizuki S.
Mayot H.
6-21-66-2
Polmans M.
Rodionov J.[2]
6-44-66-3