Sebastian Ofner vs Camilo Ugo Carabelli — Prague CH Round of 16

Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Sebastian Ofner
AUT8
Sebastian Ofner
#125ATP
1713ELO
1680Clay ELO
$345kYTD
$3.8MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 May 2023
clay
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#58ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
Ofner S.
6-4 6-2
Ugo Carabelli C.
Ofner S.
662
Ugo Carabelli C.
420

Sebastian Ofner defeated Camilo Ugo Carabelli 6-4 6-2 in the Prague CH round of 16 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #58, but Sebastian Ofner had been the form player, winning 5 of their last 8 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Ofner S.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Ugo Carabelli C.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Ofner S.

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

Serve & return on clay

Ofner S.Ugo Carabelli C.
—
Serve
24
—
Return
28

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

Statistics

This season
Ofner S.Ugo Carabelli C.
1st serve in·Slight edge
57%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
74%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
49%
Service points won·Even
64%
60%
Return points won·Even
37%
41%
Break points saved·Even
61%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.0
2.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.9
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Ofner S.Ugo Carabelli C.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
70
78
Break points saved·Even
93
90
Break points won·Clear edge
43
62
Deciding sets·Clear edge
82
96
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
84
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Ofner S.
6.6
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Ugo Carabelli C.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.1Clay Elo 1680
Surface ELO
5.9+60 Clay Elo edge
4.4Overall Elo 1713
ELO gap
5.6Overall Elo 1759
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.6
Surface form
4.8
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
4.2
Minutes 14d
8.4
4.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
6.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Ofner S.Ugo Carabelli C.
Freshness·Clear edge
83
100

Ofner S.: 6 days rest · 2 matches, 48 games (7d) · Ugo Carabelli C.: 15 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Stricker D.[7]
Ofner S.[8]
7-676-3
Mensik J.
Koepfer D.[6]
6-46-3
Molleker R.[4]
Debru G.
6-26-2
Semi-finals
Ofner S.[8]
Klein L.
7-640-66-3
Stricker D.[7]
Krajinovic F.[1]
7-55-76-3
Mensik J.
Moro Canas A.
6-27-5
Koepfer D.[6]
Kicker N.
6-46-3
Molleker R.[4]
Vacherot V.[8]
6-47-65
Debru G.
Sousa J.[5]
5-76-36-4
Quarter-finals
Krajinovic F.[1]
Koepfer D.
6-16-2
Klein L.
Kolar Z.
6-37-5
Ofner S.[8]
Barrios Vera T.
6-27-5
Stricker D.[7]
Svrcina D.
4-66-16-3
Kicker N.
Laaksonen H.
W/O
Koepfer D.[6]
Klein L.[4]
6-46-766-1
Moro Canas A.
Mochizuki S.
6-36-4
Mensik J.
Santillan A.
3-66-37-66
Debru G.
Kodat T.
7-646-736-4
Vacherot V.[8]
Paulson A.
7-656-2
Molleker R.[4]
Gomez F.
6-36-3
Sousa J.[5]
Darderi L.[3]
7-53-67-63
R16
Koepfer D.
Gombos N.
6-23-66-3
Klein L.
Agamenone F.
6-37-66
Ofner S.[8]
Ugo Carabelli C.
6-46-2
Stricker D.[7]
Meligeni Alves F.
6-756-26-4
Krajinovic F.[1]
Gaio F.
6-24-66-4
Svrcina D.
Paulson A.
6-13-66-0
Barrios Vera T.
Kopriva V.
6-25-77-67
Kolar Z.
Machac T.[6]
7-56-3
Koepfer D.[6]
Furness E.
7-660-0
Santillan A.
Hardt N.
4-66-46-3
Mochizuki S.
Gombos N.[3]
7-687-62
Kicker N.
Fatic N.
7-56-4
Laaksonen H.
Llamas Ruiz P.
6-36-766-2
Mensik J.
Sachko V.
6-46-4
Moro Canas A.
Svajda Z.
6-42-66-4
Klein L.[4]
Andreozzi G.
5-76-36-3
Vacherot V.[8]
Mena F.
6-26-4
Sousa J.[5]
Forejtek J.
6-04-66-4
Darderi L.[3]
Vrbensky M.
6-46-1
Debru G.
Nicod J.
7-56-1
Gomez F.
Giustino L.
6-36-3
Molleker R.[4]
Chazal M.
6-26-2
Paulson A.
Erhard M.
6-36-3
Kodat T.
Laaksonen H.
6-36-3
Debru G.
Nicod J.
7-56-1
R32
Machac T.[6]
Llamas Ruiz P.
6-16-1
Kolar Z.
Bellier A.
3-66-37-65
Gaio F.
Kuzmanov D.
6-47-65
Gombos N.
Piros Z.[5]
2-2
Koepfer D.
Delbonis F.
6-16-4
Meligeni Alves F.
Martinez P.
6-23-0
Kopriva V.
Sachko V.
5-77-56-2
Paulson A.
Peniston R.
2-67-56-1
Ofner S.[8]
Demin Y.
6-46-756-1
Stricker D.[7]
Ivanovski K.
6-26-2
Ugo Carabelli C.
Sels J.
6-26-746-1
Barrios Vera T.
Albot R.[2]
6-36-3
Svrcina D.
Cerundolo J.[3]
6-36-1
Agamenone F.
Gaston H.[4]
7-57-5
Klein L.
Valkusz M.
6-41-66-1
Krajinovic F.[1]
Choinski J.
6-44-66-2
Moro Canas A.
Harris B.
6-23-66-0
Koepfer D.[6]
Elias G.
1-1
Mensik J.
Albot R.[1]
7-644-66-3
Fatic N.
Added D.
5-76-46-3
Laaksonen H.
Stricker D.[2]
7-54-66-1
Sachko V.
Geerts M.
6-16-1
Svajda Z.
Couacaud E.[5]
6-46-1
Furness E.
Kolar Z.
6-46-3
Kicker N.
Dzumhur D.[7]
6-37-63
Andreozzi G.
Rincon D.
6-46-4
Hardt N.
Gaio F.
6-26-4
Klein L.[4]
Demin Y.
7-56-1
Gombos N.[3]
Molleker R.
6-46-4
Llamas Ruiz P.
Vesely J.
6-47-5
Santillan A.
Tseng C.[8]
6-36-0
Mochizuki S.
Vrbensky M.
7-56-3
Erhard M.
Maestrelli F.
7-605-76-3
Vacherot V.[8]
Kivattsev K.
6-46-4
Kodat T.
Hemery C.
6-41-66-2
Nicod J.
Barton H.
1-66-36-2
Vrbensky M.
Jorda Sanchis D.
6-37-5
Paulson A.
Cias P.
6-46-4
Forejtek J.
Barranco Cosano J.
6-43-66-4
Laaksonen H.
Bourgue M.[7]
4-67-636-2
Mena F.
Lopez Montagud C.
7-56-3
Giustino L.
Jianu F.
6-46-3
Chazal M.
Gengel M.
6-26-2
Gomez F.
Squire H.[6]
4-66-46-3
Sousa J.[5]
Royer V.
6-46-1
Darderi L.[3]
Janvier M.
6-36-777-65
Debru G.
Neumayer L.[1]
2-66-36-4
Molleker R.[4]
Rosol L.
6-36-4
Nicod J.
Barton H.
1-66-36-2