Francisco Comesana vs Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez — Lima CH Round of 32

Lima CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Francisco Comesana
ARG8
Francisco Comesana
#94ATP
1695ELO
1656Clay ELO
$580kYTD
$2.5MCAREER
25 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 6 November 2023
clay
Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez
MEX
Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez
#323ATP
1527ELO
1460Clay ELO
21 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWWLWW
Comesana F.
6-4 6-2
Pacheco Mendez R.
Comesana F.
662
Pacheco Mendez R.
420

Francisco Comesana defeated Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez 6-4 6-2 in the Lima CH round of 32 on clay. The result followed the form book — Francisco Comesana came in ranked #94, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Comesana F.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Pacheco Mendez R.

Pacheco Mendez R.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Comesana F.

Serve advantage — Comesana F.

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

Comesana F.Pacheco Mendez R.
55
Serve
—
17
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Comesana F.Pacheco Mendez R.
1st serve in·Even
64%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
63%
62%
Return points won·Even
39%
38%
Break points saved·Even
59%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.8
3.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 131). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Comesana F.Pacheco Mendez R.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
56
14
Break points saved·Slight edge
90
81
Break points won·Dominant
36
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
79
22
Tiebreaks·Dominant
38
1

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Comesana F.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Pacheco Mendez R.
5.3
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.9+196 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.1Clay Elo 1460
6.5Overall Elo 1695
ELO gap
3.5Overall Elo 1527
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.0
Surface form
3.3
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.2
Minutes 14d
8.6
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
7.0
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
Comesana F.Pacheco Mendez R.
Freshness·Even
90
87

Comesana F.: 11 days rest · 3 matches (14d) · Pacheco Mendez R.: 7 days rest · 1 match, 19 games (7d). 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