Nerman Fatic vs Marius Copil — Ismaning CH Round of 32

Ismaning CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 30 October 2023
hard
ROU
Marius Copil
35 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLW
Fatic N.
7-5 7-5
Copil M.
Fatic N.
772
Copil M.
550

Nerman Fatic defeated Marius Copil 7-5 7-5 in the Ismaning CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Nerman Fatic came in defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Copil M.

Copil M.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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.Copil M.
1st serve in·Even
63%
59%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
76%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
66%
Return points won·Even
39%
35%
Break points saved·Even
60%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
4.2
8.7
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.3
3.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (143 vs 65). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Copil M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
24
47
Break points saved·Dominant
63
91
Break points won·Dominant
36
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
24
63
Tiebreaks·Dominant
35
79

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Copil M.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
3.6
Surface form
7.0
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
6.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
Surface transition
Context
6.0
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Bellier A.
Marterer M.[2]
7-656-757-66
Semi-finals
Bellier A.
Molleker R.
7-656-2
Marterer M.[2]
Klein L.
6-46-4
Quarter-finals
Klein L.
Rehberg M.
6-36-2
Bellier A.
Huesler M.[8]
6-36-2
Marterer M.[2]
Paulson A.
6-26-4
Molleker R.
Kachmazov A.
7-56-776-3
R16
Molleker R.
Stricker D.[1]
6-724-1
Kachmazov A.
Bourgue M.
6-716-36-3
Huesler M.[8]
Squire H.
6-35-77-65
Marterer M.[2]
Zuk K.
6-37-63
Rehberg M.
Rosenkranz M.
7-656-4
Klein L.
Fatic N.
6-706-46-4
Bellier A.
Otte O.
6-47-63
Paulson A.
Stodder T.
7-696-3
R32
Bourgue M.
Krutykh O.
6-36-0
Kachmazov A.
Choinski J.[6]
6-45-76-2
Fatic N.
Copil M.
7-57-5
Otte O.
Topo M.
6-726-37-63
Marterer M.[2]
Geerts M.
6-36-4
Zuk K.
Andreev A.
7-6126-4
Paulson A.
Wessels L.
6-46-766-3
Stodder T.
Sachko V.[7]
3-67-636-3
Rosenkranz M.
Valkusz M.
6-47-613
Klein L.
Dzumhur D.[5]
6-33-66-1
Huesler M.[8]
Poljicak M.
6-46-1
Bellier A.
Mayot H.[9]
7-616-3
Molleker R.
Masur D.
7-644-66-3
Rehberg M.
Cressy M.[3]
6-756-47-64
Squire H.
Yevseyev D.
6-36-4
Stricker D.[1]
Sousa J.
7-643-66-3