Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Marton Fucsovics — Monte Carlo Masters Round of 64

Monte Carlo Masters · ATP · Round of 64
Botic Van De Zandschulp
NED
Botic Van De Zandschulp
#54ATP
1743ELO
1690Clay ELO
$690kYTD
$6.6MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 10 April 2023
clay
Marton Fucsovics
HUN
Marton Fucsovics
#76ATP
1756ELO
1686Clay ELO
$550kYTD
$8.7MCAREER
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLLWLLLL
Van De Zandschulp B.
3-6 7-6 6-1
Fucsovics M.
Van De Zandschulp B.
37762
Fucsovics M.
66211

Botic Van De Zandschulp defeated Marton Fucsovics 3-6 7-6 6-1 in the Monte Carlo Masters round of 64 on clay. The result followed the form book — Botic Van De Zandschulp came in ranked #54, defending last year's round of 64. Botic Van De Zandschulp narrowed the head-to-head to 2–2.

Key context

Head to head

1–2
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-08-17Winston-SalemFhardMarton Fucsovics6-3 7-6(3)
2022-01-10Adelaide 2R32hardMarton Fucsovics6-3 7-6(4)
2021-11-08StockholmR16hardBotic Van De Zandschulp7-6(3) 3-6 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Fucsovics M.

Fucsovics M.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

Serve advantage — Fucsovics M.

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 clay

Van De Zandschulp B.Fucsovics M.
33
Serve
—
74
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.Fucsovics M.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
72%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
47%
53%
Service points won·Even
62%
64%
Return points won·Even
38%
39%
Break points saved·Even
60%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
5.6
4.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.8
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (196 vs 171). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Van De Zandschulp B.Fucsovics M.
Clutch Rating·Even
77
73
Break points saved·Even
98
97
Break points won·Even
68
65
Deciding sets·Slight edge
78
87
Tiebreaks·Dominant
81
48

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van De Zandschulp B.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Fucsovics M.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
5.1+4 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.9Clay Elo 1686
4.9Overall Elo 1743
ELO gap
5.1Overall Elo 1756
5.0
H2H
5.0
4.4
Surface form
5.2
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.4
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
9.0
Surface transition
6.0
Context
6.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Van De Zandschulp B.Fucsovics M.
Freshness·Even
89
87

Van De Zandschulp B.: 11 days rest · 2 matches (14d) · Fucsovics M.: 9 days rest · 3 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Weather
16°COvercast
Wind 14 km/hHumidity 62%
Final
Rublev A.[5]
Rune H.[6]
5-76-27-5
Semi-finals
Rune H.[6]
Sinner J.[7]
1-67-57-5
Rublev A.[5]
Fritz T.[8]
5-76-16-3
Quarter-finals
Rublev A.[5]
Struff J.
6-17-65
Sinner J.[7]
Musetti L.[16]
6-26-2
Rune H.[6]
Medvedev D.[3]
6-36-4
Fritz T.[8]
Tsitsipas S.[2]
6-26-4
R16
Musetti L.[16]
Djokovic N.[1]
4-67-56-4
Sinner J.[7]
Hurkacz H.[10]
3-67-666-1
Rune H.[6]
Berrettini M.
W/O
Struff J.
Ruud C.[4]
6-17-66
Tsitsipas S.[2]
Jarry N.
6-36-4
Medvedev D.[3]
Zverev A.[13]
3-67-57-67
Fritz T.[8]
Lehecka J.
4-66-46-1
Rublev A.[5]
Khachanov K.[9]
7-646-2
R32
Djokovic N.[1]
Gakhov I.
7-656-2
Sinner J.[7]
Schwartzman D.
6-03-1
Hurkacz H.[10]
Draper J.
6-36-737-5
Medvedev D.[3]
Sonego L.
6-36-2
Rune H.[6]
Thiem D.
6-26-4
Rublev A.[5]
Munar J.
4-66-26-2
Khachanov K.[9]
Ivashka I.
7-626-2
Struff J.
De Minaur A.[14]
6-36-2
Ruud C.[4]
Van De Zandschulp B.
7-57-61
Fritz T.[8]
Wawrinka S.
7-6106-2
Lehecka J.
Dimitrov G.
7-646-4
Tsitsipas S.[2]
Bonzi B.
4-1
Zverev A.[13]
Bautista Agut R.
6-46-4
Berrettini M.
Cerundolo F.
5-77-616-4
Jarry N.
Popyrin A.
3-67-56-4
Musetti L.[16]
Nardi L.
6-06-0
R64
Gakhov I.
Mcdonald M.
7-662-66-3
Nardi L.
Vacherot V.
7-57-5
Musetti L.[16]
Kecmanovic M.
7-616-0
Hurkacz H.[10]
Djere L.
6-757-657-65
Draper J.
Baez S.
6-37-5
Bautista Agut R.
Krajinovic F.
5-77-6106-1
Zverev A.[13]
Bublik A.
3-66-26-4
Munar J.
Huesler M.
7-634-66-4
Khachanov K.[9]
Davidovich Fokina A.
6-26-2
De Minaur A.[14]
Murray A.
6-16-3
Struff J.
Ramos A.
6-46-3
Van De Zandschulp B.
Fucsovics M.
3-67-626-1
Dimitrov G.
Shelton B.
6-13-66-3
Jarry N.
Coric B.[15]
6-26-3
Popyrin A.
Lajovic D.
7-616-3
Bonzi B.
Zapata Miralles B.
6-17-5
Sonego L.
Humbert U.
3-67-57-5
Lehecka J.
Ruusuvuori E.
6-17-5
Schwartzman D.
Goffin D.
6-46-2
Ivashka I.
Evans D.
2-66-26-3
Cerundolo F.
Norrie C.[11]
6-36-4
Berrettini M.
Cressy M.
6-46-2
Thiem D.
Gasquet R.
6-16-4
Wawrinka S.
Griekspoor T.
5-76-36-4