Nerman Fatic vs Matteo Gigante — Perugia CH Round of 16

Perugia CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 12 June 2023
clay
Matteo Gigante
ITA
Matteo Gigante
#526ATP
1592ELO
1598Clay ELO
24 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
Fatic N.
4-6 7-6 6-3
Gigante M.
Fatic N.
47762
Gigante M.
66431

Nerman Fatic defeated Matteo Gigante 4-6 7-6 6-3 in the Perugia CH round of 16 on clay. The result followed the form book — Nerman Fatic came in ranked #396, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Gigante M.

Gigante M.serving70% hold

wins 58% 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.Gigante M.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
61%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
40%
Break points saved·Even
60%
59%
Aces / match·Even
4.3
3.7
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.3
3.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (143 vs 170). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Gigante M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
24
58
Break points saved·Clear edge
63
78
Break points won·Even
36
35
Deciding sets·Dominant
24
89
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
35
54

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Gigante M.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
3.5Clay Elo 1478
Surface ELO
6.5+120 Clay Elo edge
3.8Overall Elo 1496
ELO gap
6.2Overall Elo 1592
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.7
Surface form
2.1
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
7.5
Minutes 14d
9.0
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Marozsan F.[7]
Lavagno E.
6-26-3
Semi-finals
Lavagno E.
Muller A.[5]
4-66-36-2
Marozsan F.[7]
Cachin P.[1]
6-46-3
Quarter-finals
Cachin P.[1]
Fatic N.
6-33-0
Marozsan F.[7]
Maestrelli F.
6-36-4
Muller A.[5]
Munar J.[3]
5-76-46-2
Lavagno E.
Brancaccio R.
6-26-3
R16
Cachin P.[1]
Collarini A.
6-13-1
Muller A.[5]
Martin Tiffon P.
6-36-1
Brancaccio R.
Ramos A.[2]
5-77-646-2
Lavagno E.
Roca Batalla O.
6-727-57-5
Fatic N.
Gigante M.
4-67-646-3
Munar J.[3]
Pellegrino A.
7-56-2
Marozsan F.[7]
Lopez San Martin A.
6-26-3
Maestrelli F.
Travaglia S.
6-37-5
R32
Brancaccio R.
Ionel N.
6-26-1
Pellegrino A.
Passaro F.
7-636-3
Lopez San Martin A.
Trungelliti M.
6-44-67-66
Gigante M.
Giannessi A.
6-31-2
Martin Tiffon P.
Giustino L.
6-36-3
Muller A.[5]
Darderi L.
6-43-66-1
Marozsan F.[7]
Agamenone F.
6-47-64
Ramos A.[2]
Gaio F.
6-26-2
Lavagno E.
Weis A.
6-37-64
Roca Batalla O.
Bagnis F.[8]
6-36-4
Maestrelli F.
Olivo R.
6-47-5
Travaglia S.
Thiem D.[4]
2-67-666-1
Fatic N.
Zeppieri G.
7-642-66-1
Collarini A.
Popko D.
6-33-66-3
Cachin P.[1]
Ferrari G.
6-46-4
Munar J.[3]
Arnaboldi A.
6-06-4