Sebastian Fanselow vs Cannon Kingsley — Knoxville CH Round of 32

Knoxville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
GER
Sebastian Fanselow
#1187ATP
34 yrs · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 6 November 2023
hard
USA
Cannon Kingsley
#421ATP
1342ELO
1345Hard ELO
25 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWLWWLW
Fanselow S.
6-4 6-2
Kingsley C.
Fanselow S.
662
Kingsley C.
420

Sebastian Fanselow defeated Cannon Kingsley 6-4 6-2 in the Knoxville CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Cannon Kingsley came in ranked #421, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fanselow S.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Kingsley C.

Kingsley C.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Fanselow S.

Serve advantage — Kingsley C.

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
Fanselow S.Kingsley C.
1st serve in·Slight edge
57%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
66%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
59%
64%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
56%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
3.5
6.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.3
2.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (87 vs 94). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fanselow S.Kingsley C.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
4
21
Break points saved·Dominant
31
74
Break points won·Clear edge
5
19
Deciding sets·Slight edge
22
27
Tiebreaks·Dominant
51
20

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fanselow S.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Kingsley C.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.9
Surface form
5.5
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
8.6
Minutes 14d
8.3
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
6.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Michelsen A.[3]
Kudla D.
7-54-66-2
Semi-finals
Michelsen A.[3]
Sandgren T.
6-22-66-4
Kudla D.
Nava E.[5]
5-76-46-1
Quarter-finals
Michelsen A.[3]
Basavareddy N.
6-36-3
Kudla D.
Mchugh A.
6-37-65
Nava E.[5]
Svajda Z.[4]
6-46-4
Sandgren T.
Ritschard A.
7-696-4
R16
Basavareddy N.
Zhukayev B.
6-46-2
Nava E.[5]
Cassone M.
6-46-4
Kudla D.
Damm M.
7-646-3
Ritschard A.
Krueger M.
6-26-4
Svajda Z.[4]
Fanselow S.
6-27-5
Sandgren T.
Holt B.
6-37-5
Michelsen A.[3]
Debru G.
6-33-66-4
Mchugh A.
Kwiatkowski T.
0-66-46-3
R32
Kudla D.
Kypson P.
6-756-36-4
Ritschard A.
Shang J.[8]
3-67-696-2
Cassone M.
Harrison C.
6-16-4
Svajda Z.[4]
Mayo A.
6-36-4
Debru G.
Monday J.
4-67-56-3
Basavareddy N.
Rosenkranz M.
4-66-27-5
Zhukayev B.
Droguet T.[6]
6-46-1
Krueger M.
Karlovskiy E.
7-56-2
Fanselow S.
Kingsley C.
6-46-2
Kwiatkowski T.
Kirchheimer S.
6-756-26-4
Holt B.
Kovacevic A.[2]
6-43-67-61
Michelsen A.[3]
Tomic B.
4-67-656-4
Mchugh A.
Cozbinov A.
3-67-56-3
Sandgren T.
Quinn E.
4-67-667-63
Nava E.[5]
Serdarusic N.
6-46-4
Damm M.
Mmoh M.[1]
6-46-3