Matthew Christopher Romios vs Thomas Fancutt — Sydney CH Qualifying Round 1

Sydney CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
AUS
Matthew Christopher Romios
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWLLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 30 October 2023
hard
Thomas Fancutt
AUS4
Thomas Fancutt
#851ATP
31 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWWLWLLW
Romios M.
6-1 6-3
Fancutt T.
Romios M.
662
Fancutt T.
130

Matthew Christopher Romios defeated Thomas Fancutt 6-1 6-3 in the Sydney CH qualifying round 1 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Romios M.serving79% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Fancutt T.

Fancutt T.serving87% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Romios M.

Serve advantage — Fancutt 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
Romios M.Fancutt T.
1st serve in·Even
61%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
72%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
43%
48%
Service points won·Even
58%
62%
Return points won·Even
33%
35%
Break points saved·Clear edge
50%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.7
8.7
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.3
4.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (19 vs 38). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Romios M.
4.4
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Injury return: 49 days (−1.0)
Fancutt T.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.1
Surface form
4.6
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.1
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Romios M.Fancutt T.
Freshness·
—
61

Fancutt T.: 1 day rest · 2 matches, 61 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Q2
Dellavedova M.[11]
Romios M.
7-633-66-1
Statham J.[2]
Wehnelt K.[9]
6-47-62
Seggerman R.
Mott B.[1]
3-66-36-4
Moriya H.[8]
Ly N.[6]
6-736-36-3
Nam J.
Takahashi Y.[5]
6-36-1
Rai A.[3]
Ochi M.[10]
7-56-2
Q1
Moriya H.[8]
Court J.
6-33-66-4
Wehnelt K.[9]
Van Rensburg S.
6-16-2
Romios M.
Fancutt T.[4]
6-16-3
Takahashi Y.[5]
Yin B.
6-26-3
Statham J.[2]
Gadecki T.
6-46-3
Ly N.[6]
Hulme M.
6-46-3
Dellavedova M.[11]
Braithwaite T.
6-36-2
Ochi M.[10]
Bouzige M.
6-26-2
Rai A.[3]
Puttergill C.
6-12-66-3
Nam J.
Klintcharov A.
6-27-63
Seggerman R.
Pearson K.
6-47-64
Mott B.[1]
Inui Y.
7-56-786-2