Christopher Oconnell vs Nerman Fatic — Split CH Round of 16

Split CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
AUS1
Christopher Oconnell
1673ELO
1569Clay ELO
32 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 10 April 2023
clay
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
Oconnell C.
6-1 6-3
Fatic N.
Oconnell C.
662
Fatic N.
130

Christopher Oconnell defeated Nerman Fatic 6-1 6-3 in the Split CH round of 16 on clay. The result followed the form book — Christopher Oconnell came in defending the title.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Oconnell C.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Fatic N.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Oconnell C.

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

Statistics

This season
Oconnell C.Fatic N.
1st serve in·Even
61%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
50%
Service points won·Even
64%
62%
Return points won·Even
35%
39%
Break points saved·Even
63%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.1
4.3
Double faults / match·Slight edge
1.7
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 143). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Oconnell C.Fatic N.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
49
24
Break points saved·Dominant
98
63
Break points won·Clear edge
22
36
Deciding sets·Clear edge
38
24
Tiebreaks·Dominant
93
35

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Oconnell C.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Fatic N.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.3+91 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.7Clay Elo 1478
7.1Overall Elo 1673
ELO gap
2.9Overall Elo 1496
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.1
Surface form
5.3
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
5.7
Minutes 14d
8.7
4.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
Defending pts
6.0

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