Arthur Cazaux vs Omar Jasika — Lexington CH Round of 16

Lexington CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Arthur Cazaux
FRA1
Arthur Cazaux
#98ATP
1793ELO
1738Hard ELO
$46kYTD
$2.3MCAREER
23 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLWWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 31 July 2023
hard
AUS
Omar Jasika
#528ATP
1296ELO
1272Hard ELO
29 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLWLLL
Cazaux A.
6-2 6-3
Jasika O.
Cazaux A.
662
Jasika O.
230

Arthur Cazaux defeated Omar Jasika 6-2 6-3 in the Lexington CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Arthur Cazaux came in ranked #98.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Cazaux A.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Jasika O.

Jasika O.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Cazaux A.

Serve advantage — Cazaux A.

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 hard

Cazaux A.Jasika O.
40
Serve
—
19
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Cazaux A.Jasika O.
1st serve in·Slight edge
59%
68%
1st serve points won·Clear edge
75%
63%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Slight edge
66%
59%
Return points won·Even
38%
38%
Break points saved·Slight edge
66%
57%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.8
2.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.2
2.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (198 vs 151). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Cazaux A.Jasika O.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
65
0
Break points saved·Dominant
97
47
Break points won·Clear edge
27
13
Deciding sets·Dominant
87
13
Tiebreaks·Dominant
70
1

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Cazaux A.
7.9
Dominant favouriteUmpiry Score
Jasika O.
4.7
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
10.0+466 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
0.0Hard Elo 1272
10.0Overall Elo 1793
ELO gap
0.0Overall Elo 1296
10.0No prior meetings
H2H
0.0
5.7
Surface form
5.8
Fatigue & Travel
6.3
Minutes 14d
5.6
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
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
Final
Johnson S.[2]
Cazaux A.[1]
7-656-4
Semi-finals
Cazaux A.[1]
Kingsley C.
6-27-66
Johnson S.[2]
Sandgren T.[5]
7-616-3
Quarter-finals
Cazaux A.[1]
Mayo A.
6-16-4
Sandgren T.[5]
Hong S.[4]
6-46-2
Kingsley C.
Wu T.[3]
6-36-2
Johnson S.[2]
Blanch U.
6-36-4
R16
Wu T.[3]
Vallejo A.
6-47-64
Mayo A.
Schoolkate T.[8]
3-66-46-3
Cazaux A.[1]
Jasika O.
6-26-3
Hong S.[4]
Tomic B.
6-16-2
Sandgren T.[5]
Kirchheimer S.
6-26-4
Blanch U.
Walton A.[7]
6-36-3
Kingsley C.
Sweeny D.[6]
6-47-5
Johnson S.[2]
Spizzirri E.
6-37-5
R32
Kirchheimer S.
Damm M.
6-747-657-64
Sweeny D.[6]
Boyer T.
6-36-4
Spizzirri E.
Harrison C.
7-646-4
Blanch U.
Mchugh A.
7-626-4
Walton A.[7]
Janvier M.
4-66-36-3
Sandgren T.[5]
Lapadat J.
7-56-3
Vallejo A.
Bolt A.
6-44-66-1
Wu T.[3]
Langmo C.
6-46-4
Mayo A.
Ponwith N.
6-46-1
Hong S.[4]
Ly N.
6-17-5
Tomic B.
Dostanic S.
6-42-66-1
Jasika O.
Peniston R.
7-56-2
Cazaux A.[1]
Boulais J.
7-54-66-4
Schoolkate T.[8]
Sekulic P.
3-67-636-1
Kingsley C.
Mochizuki Y.
6-44-66-3
Johnson S.[2]
Harris B.
7-656-4