Emilio Nava vs Bernard Tomic — Charlottesville CH Round of 32

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Emilio Nava
USA5
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 30 October 2023
hard
Bernard Tomic
AUS
Bernard Tomic
#206ATP
1475ELO
1441Hard ELO
$117kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
33 yrs · 196 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLWLLL
Nava E.
2-6 7-6 7-5
Tomic B.
Nava E.
27772
Tomic B.
66151

Emilio Nava defeated Bernard Tomic 2-6 7-6 7-5 in the Charlottesville CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91, defending last year's semi-final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Tomic B.

Tomic B.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Nava E.

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

Serve & return on hard

Nava E.Tomic B.
39
Serve
—
21
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Tomic B.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
64%
63%
Return points won·Even
37%
36%
Break points saved·Even
64%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.6
5.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.0
2.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 198). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Tomic B.
Clutch Rating·Even
52
53
Break points saved·Even
94
92
Break points won·Clear edge
17
4
Deciding sets·Clear edge
89
74
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
79

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Tomic B.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.9+180 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.1Hard Elo 1441
7.3Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
2.7Overall Elo 1475
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.8
Surface form
4.9
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.8
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
8.5
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
Nava E.Tomic B.
Freshness·Clear edge
96
81

Nava E.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Tomic B.: 4 days rest · 2 matches, 45 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Zhukayev B.
Mayo A.
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Zhukayev B.
Kypson P.
6-47-64
Mayo A.
Quinn E.
3-66-46-3
Quarter-finals
Kypson P.
Holt B.
6-16-4
Quinn E.
Paire B.[3]
7-656-2
Mayo A.
Ritschard A.
6-36-4
Zhukayev B.
Serdarusic N.
6-36-4
R16
Paire B.[3]
Gerch L.
W/O
Mayo A.
Opelka R.
W/O
Holt B.
Kingsley C.
6-46-4
Ritschard A.
Mmoh M.[1]
6-37-65
Zhukayev B.
Montes De La Torre I.
6-47-68
Quinn E.
Nava E.[5]
6-36-1
Kypson P.
Kudla D.[7]
6-16-3
Serdarusic N.
Damm M.
7-653-66-1
R32
Zhukayev B.
Kwiatkowski T.
4-67-637-63
Montes De La Torre I.
Walton A.[6]
6-23-67-64
Quinn E.
Krueger M.
3-67-626-4
Gerch L.
Kozlov S.
6-25-77-65
Opelka R.
Sandgren T.[8]
6-47-5
Ritschard A.
Mchugh A.
6-46-4
Kingsley C.
Michelsen A.[2]
7-56-3
Mayo A.
Ayeni O.
7-56-2
Paire B.[3]
King D.
7-636-2
Mmoh M.[1]
Johnson S.
7-667-5
Kudla D.[7]
Rodesch C.
7-656-1
Serdarusic N.
Spizzirri E.
6-12-66-4
Damm M.
Svajda Z.[4]
2-66-37-63
Holt B.
Gomez E.
6-26-2
Kypson P.
Debru G.
6-47-5
Nava E.[5]
Tomic B.
2-67-617-5