Daniel Rodrigues vs Gabi Adrian Boitan — Palmas Del Mar CH Qualifying Round 1

Palmas Del Mar CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
POR
Daniel Rodrigues
26 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 12 June 2023
hard
ROU12
Gabi Adrian Boitan
1370ELO
1345Hard ELO
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWLWLL
Rodrigues D.
6-2 7-5
Boitan G.
Rodrigues D.
672
Boitan G.
250

Daniel Rodrigues defeated Gabi Adrian Boitan 6-2 7-5 in the Palmas Del Mar CH qualifying round 1 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Rodrigues D.serving64% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Boitan G.

Boitan G.serving73% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Rodrigues D.

Serve advantage — Boitan G.

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
Rodrigues D.Boitan G.
1st serve in·Even
61%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
58%
69%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
43%
48%
Service points won·Slight edge
52%
61%
Return points won·Even
42%
39%
Break points saved·Clear edge
39%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
2.8
3.4
Double faults / match·Slight edge
5.5
5.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (4 vs 93). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rodrigues D.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Boitan G.
4.2
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 133 days (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
7.0
Surface form
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
7.0
Prev. match
6.0
Surface transition
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
Q2
Zheng M.
Rodrigues D.
6-36-1
Heide G.[10]
Copil M.[1]
6-36-4
Tomic B.[6]
Kirchheimer S.[7]
7-53-66-3
Zhu E.[2]
Rybakov A.[8]
7-654-66-3
Sinclair C.[9]
Uesugi K.
6-17-64
Chappell N.[3]
Hallquist Lithen J.
4-66-36-3
Q1
Zhu E.[2]
Mccormick T.
4-66-37-5
Rodrigues D.
Boitan G.[12]
6-27-5
Sinclair C.[9]
Wiersholm H.
6-26-1
Tomic B.[6]
Young D.
6-46-2
Chappell N.[3]
Boyer T.
7-636-2
Heide G.[10]
Nam J.
6-46-4
Kirchheimer S.[7]
Brymer G.
6-46-4
Zheng M.
Ponwith N.[5]
6-47-66
Uesugi K.
Puttergill C.
6-36-1
Hallquist Lithen J.
Alves M.[11]
0-66-34-1
Rybakov A.[8]
Perez A.
5-76-16-2
Copil M.[1]
Evans G.
5-77-633-0
Zhu E.
Mccormick T.
4-66-37-5