Nerman Fatic vs Giulio Zeppieri — Perugia CH Round of 32

Perugia CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
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
Giulio Zeppieri
ITA
Giulio Zeppieri
#218ATP
1622ELO
1566Clay ELO
$70kYTD
$1.4MCAREER
24 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLW
Fatic N.
7-6 2-6 6-1
Zeppieri G.
Fatic N.
77262
Zeppieri G.
64611

Nerman Fatic defeated Giulio Zeppieri 7-6 2-6 6-1 in the Perugia CH round of 32 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Giulio Zeppieri came in ranked #218, defending last year's quarter-final.

Key context

  • Match story: Nerman Fatic came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 7–6 2–6 6–1.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Zeppieri G.

Zeppieri G.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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
Fatic N.Zeppieri G.
1st serve in·Even
63%
62%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
66%
Return points won·Even
39%
36%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
65%
Aces / match·Clear edge
4.3
7.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.3
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (143 vs 178). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Zeppieri G.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
24
55
Break points saved·Dominant
63
95
Break points won·Even
36
39
Deciding sets·Dominant
24
68
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
35
43

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Zeppieri G.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.0Clay Elo 1478
Surface ELO
6.0+87 Clay Elo edge
3.4Overall Elo 1496
ELO gap
6.6Overall Elo 1622
10.0No prior meetings
H2H
0.0
4.7
Surface form
6.4
0.0
Win streak
7.03-match win streak
Fatigue & Travel
7.5
Minutes 14d
6.2
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
Context
6.0
Defending pts
7.0

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