Luciano Darderi vs Camilo Ugo Carabelli — Lima CH Round of 16

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Luciano Darderi
ITA
Luciano Darderi
#18ATP
1835ELO
1836Clay ELO
$1.3MYTD
$4.7MCAREER
24 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLWWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 6 November 2023
clay
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#58ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
Darderi L.
6-4 6-2
Ugo Carabelli C.
Darderi L.
662
Ugo Carabelli C.
420

Luciano Darderi defeated Camilo Ugo Carabelli 6-4 6-2 in the Lima CH round of 16 on clay. The result followed the form book — Luciano Darderi came in ranked #18, leading the head-to-head 1–0. Luciano Darderi extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-07-20UmagSFclayLuciano Darderi7-6(6) 6-3
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Darderi L.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Ugo Carabelli C.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Darderi L.

Serve advantage — Darderi L.

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

Darderi L.Ugo Carabelli C.
52
Serve
24
73
Return
36

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

Statistics

This season
Darderi L.Ugo Carabelli C.
1st serve in·Slight edge
58%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
72%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Even
64%
60%
Return points won·Even
39%
41%
Break points saved·Even
61%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.5
2.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.4
2.4

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Darderi L.Ugo Carabelli C.
Clutch Rating·Even
78
78
Break points saved·Even
94
90
Break points won·Clear edge
50
62
Deciding sets·Even
93
96
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
94
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Darderi L.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Ugo Carabelli C.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
5.5+95 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.5Clay Elo 1741
5.3Overall Elo 1835
ELO gap
4.7Overall Elo 1759
3.3
H2H
6.7
6.2
Surface form
6.8
Fatigue & Travel
4.7
Minutes 14d
3.9
4.0
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts

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
Darderi L.Ugo Carabelli C.
Freshness·Even
100
100

Darderi L.: 15 days rest · Ugo Carabelli C.: 15 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Guillen Meza A.
Bicknell B.
7-636-1
Darderi L.
Navone M.
4-66-37-5
Semi-finals
Bicknell B.
Dellien Velasco M.[4]
3-67-666-3
Guillen Meza A.
Olivo R.[2]
7-57-5
Darderi L.
Tabilo A.
7-54-66-3
Navone M.
Comesana F.[8]
3-66-36-2
Quarter-finals
Guillen Meza A.
Huertas Del Pino A.
6-25-76-4
Bicknell B.
Buse I.
3-67-626-4
Olivo R.[2]
Bueno G.[8]
4-66-36-3
Dellien Velasco M.[4]
Lama G.[6]
6-27-66
Navone M.
Andreozzi G.
6-22-2
Tabilo A.
Burruchaga R.
6-27-5
Darderi L.
Varillas J.[1]
6-766-36-0
Comesana F.[8]
Galan D.[3]
6-46-4
R16
Huertas Del Pino A.
Reis Da Silva J.[3]
7-52-66-2
Dellien Velasco M.[4]
Sakamoto P.
5-76-06-0
Bueno G.[8]
Andrade A.
6-36-2
Buse I.
Vallejo A.
7-57-64
Bicknell B.
Ficovich J.[1]
7-54-66-3
Olivo R.[2]
Villanueva G.
0-66-36-4
Guillen Meza A.
Heide G.[5]
6-22-67-64
Lama G.[6]
Otegui J.
7-686-4
Andreozzi G.
Huertas Del Pino A.
6-25-76-4
Comesana F.[8]
Ymer E.
6-44-66-4
Tabilo A.
Huertas Del Pino C.
6-36-4
Burruchaga R.
Lavagno E.
6-36-0
Varillas J.[1]
Reis Da Silva J.
6-26-0
Darderi L.
Ugo Carabelli C.
6-46-2
Navone M.
Guillen Meza A.
6-36-2
Galan D.[3]
Giannessi A.
6-46-3
R32
Heide G.[5]
Monzon I.
6-06-736-1
Andrade A.
Aboian L.
6-36-4
Otegui J.
Franco Descotte M.
6-36-4
Olivo R.[2]
Huertas Del Pino C.
3-67-57-5
Villanueva G.
Prado Angelo J.
6-31-67-5
Sakamoto P.
Justo G.
6-47-65
Dellien Velasco M.[4]
Alves M.
6-12-66-0
Ficovich J.[1]
Farjat T.
6-17-61
Huertas Del Pino A.
Kuzuhara B.
6-41-66-3
Vallejo A.
Boscardin Dias P.
6-26-4
Reis Da Silva J.[3]
Leite W.
6-16-3
Buse I.
Dutra Da Silva D.[7]
3-66-36-2
Bicknell B.
Lilov V.
6-26-4
Guillen Meza A.
Aboian V.
6-16-2
Bueno G.[8]
Cossu M.
6-26-3
Lama G.[6]
Panta Herreros J.
6-746-47-5
Reis Da Silva J.
Vacherot V.
6-36-0
Varillas J.[1]
Meligeni Alves F.
7-646-786-4
Navone M.
Coria F.[2]
6-47-64
Guillen Meza A.
Buse I.
6-726-36-4
Andreozzi G.
Cerundolo J.[7]
6-36-3
Galan D.[3]
Alves M.
3-66-17-65
Huertas Del Pino C.
Diaz Acosta F.[5]
6-26-2
Darderi L.
Feldbausch K.
6-43-67-5
Ymer E.
Agamenone F.
3-66-16-4
Comesana F.[8]
Pacheco Mendez R.
6-46-2
Lavagno E.
Barrios Vera T.[4]
6-42-66-3
Ugo Carabelli C.
Dellien H.[6]
6-46-1
Giannessi A.
Roca Batalla O.
1-66-36-2
Tabilo A.
Vallejo A.
6-46-1
Burruchaga R.
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
6-16-2
Huertas Del Pino A.
Crawford O.
7-56-0