Mariano Navone vs Luciano Darderi — Buenos Aires CH Semi-final

Buenos Aires CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
Mariano Navone
ARG
Mariano Navone
#38ATP
1822ELO
1800Clay ELO
$722kYTD
$3.1MCAREER
25 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 9 October 2023
clay
Luciano Darderi
ITA
Luciano Darderi
#16ATP
1835ELO
1836Clay ELO
$1.3MYTD
$4.7MCAREER
24 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLWWLW
Navone M.
2-6 6-4 7-5
Darderi L.
Navone M.
2672
Darderi L.
6451

Mariano Navone defeated Luciano Darderi 2-6 6-4 7-5 in the Buenos Aires CH semi-final on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Luciano Darderi came in ranked #16, leading the head-to-head 3–2, defending last year's round of 16, but Mariano Navone had been the form player, winning 5 of their last 7 on clay. Mariano Navone narrowed the head-to-head to 3–3.

Key context

Head to head

2–3
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2026-02-23SantiagoR16clayLuciano Darderi6-3 3-6 6-4
2024-09-25TokyoR32hardMariano Navone6-4 6-4
2024-05-06Rome MastersR64clayLuciano Darderi6-3 6-2
2024-04-15BucharestR32clayMariano Navone6-2 6-3
2024-02-12Buenos AiresR32clayLuciano Darderi6-2 6-1
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Navone M.serving66% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Darderi L.

Darderi L.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Navone M.

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

Serve & return on clay

Navone M.Darderi L.
0
Serve
52
95
Return
73

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

Statistics

This season
Navone M.Darderi L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
67%
58%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
64%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
59%
64%
Return points won·Even
43%
39%
Break points saved·Slight edge
56%
61%
Aces / match·Dominant
1.7
5.5
Double faults / match·Even
2.5
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Navone M.Darderi L.
Clutch Rating·Even
75
78
Break points saved·Slight edge
86
94
Break points won·Dominant
90
50
Deciding sets·Clear edge
77
93
Tiebreaks·Dominant
60
94

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Navone M.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Darderi L.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.6Clay Elo 1800
Surface ELO
5.4+36 Clay Elo edge
5.0Overall Elo 1822
ELO gap
5.0Overall Elo 1835
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.3
Surface form
7.2
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
6.8
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Navone M.Darderi L.
Freshness·Even
94
97

Navone M.: 11 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Darderi L.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Seyboth Wild T.[8]
Darderi L.[3]
6-36-3
Navone M.
Coria F.[1]
2-66-36-4
Semi-finals
Seyboth Wild T.[8]
Navone M.[7]
6-26-3
Darderi L.[3]
Collarini A.[1]
4-67-656-2
Navone M.
Darderi L.
2-66-47-5
Coria F.[1]
Diaz Acosta F.[3]
6-46-4
Quarter-finals
Seyboth Wild T.[8]
Casanova H.
6-36-2
Darderi L.[3]
Rodriguez Taverna S.
6-36-2
Collarini A.[1]
Villanueva G.
6-26-1
Navone M.[7]
Burruchaga R.
6-37-62
Darderi L.
Cerundolo J.[2]
6-37-5
Navone M.
Agamenone F.
6-36-2
Diaz Acosta F.[3]
Comesana F.[7]
7-654-67-63
Coria F.[1]
Choinski J.[8]
5-77-636-3
R16
Collarini A.[1]
Comesana F.
6-36-4
Navone M.[7]
Torres J.
7-50-67-5
Casanova H.
Reis Da Silva J.
6-16-726-4
Rodriguez Taverna S.
Aboian V.
6-36-4
Darderi L.[3]
Huertas Del Pino C.
6-26-0
Villanueva G.
Hardt N.[6]
7-51-67-5
Burruchaga R.
Heide G.
6-16-2
Seyboth Wild T.[8]
Dellien Velasco M.
6-13-66-1
Choinski J.[8]
Dellien H.
6-40-0
Cerundolo J.[2]
Pellegrino A.
6-24-66-4
Navone M.
Elias G.
3-66-47-63
Agamenone F.
Villanueva G.
7-626-2
Comesana F.[7]
Kovalik J.
6-736-36-4
Diaz Acosta F.[3]
Olivo R.
6-36-4
Coria F.[1]
Reis Da Silva J.
6-16-3
Darderi L.
Kopriva V.[5]
6-34-66-4
R32
Villanueva G.
Lama G.
7-667-62
Aboian V.
Pereira J.
3-66-13-0
Navone M.[7]
Lingua Lavallen A.
6-36-2
Heide G.
Kestelboim M.
6-46-3
Dellien Velasco M.
Leite W.
6-36-2
Comesana F.
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
6-46-2
Hardt N.[6]
Midon L.
6-46-4
Torres J.
Zukas M.
6-26-1
Casanova H.
Boscardin Dias P.
6-16-3
Rodriguez Taverna S.
Barrena A.
6-06-4
Darderi L.[3]
Janvier M.
6-36-4
Collarini A.[1]
Dutra Da Silva D.
6-46-2
Seyboth Wild T.[8]
Hassan B.
6-24-66-3
Reis Da Silva J.
Ficovich J.[4]
6-27-5
Burruchaga R.
Farjat T.
6-26-1
Huertas Del Pino C.
Otegui J.
6-46-2
Pellegrino A.
Andreozzi G.
7-56-2
Kopriva V.[5]
Svrcina D.
7-57-63
Cerundolo J.[2]
Collarini A.
6-36-3
Villanueva G.
Torres J.
2-66-26-3
Agamenone F.
Tabilo A.[6]
6-43-67-5
Comesana F.[7]
Trungelliti M.
6-46-3
Kovalik J.
Neumayer L.
6-756-46-2
Olivo R.
Burruchaga R.
6-06-4
Diaz Acosta F.[3]
Delbonis F.
6-36-4
Choinski J.[8]
Monteiro T.
6-31-66-3
Dellien H.
Olivieri G.
5-76-47-65
Coria F.[1]
Ficovich J.
7-642-66-3
Darderi L.
Meligeni Alves F.
4-66-26-4
Elias G.
Barrios Vera T.[4]
4-66-27-5
Navone M.
Dellien Velasco M.
6-26-2
Reis Da Silva J.
Bagnis F.
6-757-57-62