Fons Van Sambeek vs Tatsuma Ito — Cary CH Qualifying Round 1

Cary CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
NED
Fons Van Sambeek
#1155ATP
24 yrs · 185 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 7 August 2023
hard
JPN10
Tatsuma Ito
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
Van Sambeek F.
7-6 1-6 6-3
Ito T.
Van Sambeek F.
78162
Ito T.
66631

Fons Van Sambeek defeated Tatsuma Ito 7-6 1-6 6-3 in the Cary CH qualifying round 1 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van Sambeek F.serving59% hold

wins 54% of points on serve vs Ito T.

Ito T.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Van Sambeek F.

Serve advantage — Ito T.

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
Van Sambeek F.Ito T.
1st serve in·Even
65%
61%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
57%
65%
2nd serve points won·Clear edge
35%
48%
Service points won·Slight edge
49%
58%
Return points won·Slight edge
34%
39%
Break points saved·Clear edge
48%
63%
Aces / match·Clear edge
1.8
3.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.5
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (4 vs 17). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van Sambeek F.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Ito T.
4.2
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 91 days (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
Surface form
5.0
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Van Sambeek F.Ito T.
Freshness·
89
—

Van Sambeek F.: 2 days rest · 1 match, 20 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Q2
Dostanic S.
Mochizuki Y.[9]
3-66-36-1
Poling K.
Van Sambeek F.
6-26-4
Smith K.
Zink T.
6-726-26-3
Ellis B.[8]
Harrison R.
6-33-66-4
Vandecasteele Q.
Ponwith N.[7]
6-46-2
Harris B.[2]
Angele J.[11]
7-617-5
Young D.
Pannu K.
6-46-1
Kwiatkowski T.[4]
Smith K.[10]
7-646-4
Angele J.
Perez A.[6]
6-36-2
Johns G.
Ponwith N.[5]
7-626-2
Vives Marcos P.
Kingsley C.[3]
6-46-4
Kirchheimer S.[2]
Rybakov A.[11]
6-727-57-63
Q1
Dostanic S.
Sekulic P.[4]
7-54-66-1
Zink T.
Ramanathan R.[12]
5-76-16-2
Smith K.
Ly N.[3]
6-26-4
Harrison R.
Mejia N.
6-36-4
Vandecasteele Q.
Kirchheimer S.[6]
5-76-36-2
Ellis B.[8]
Pervolarakis M.
6-36-2
Harris B.[2]
Young D.
6-46-4
Van Sambeek F.
Ito T.[10]
7-661-66-3
Mochizuki Y.[9]
King E.
7-677-5
Angele J.[11]
Puttergill C.
7-687-5
Poling K.
Kumar O.[5]
1-66-37-5
Angele J.
Trotter J.
7-667-62
Perez A.[6]
Kang K.
6-46-2
Johns G.
Boulais J.[9]
7-57-68
Ponwith N.[5]
Baris O.
6-16-4
Smith K.[10]
Staeheli L.
6-40-66-2
Kwiatkowski T.[4]
Nettles J.
6-46-2
Vives Marcos P.
Montes De La Torre I.[7]
4-66-27-5
Kingsley C.[3]
Catry R.
6-36-4
Rybakov A.[11]
Markes C.
6-36-1
Kirchheimer S.[2]
Thomson C.
7-636-3
Pannu K.
Vandecasteele Q.[12]
6-24-66-0
Young D.
Gomez F.[1]
6-33-66-2