Emilio Nava vs Zachary Svajda — Knoxville CH Quarter-final

Knoxville CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Emilio Nava
USA5
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 6 November 2023
hard
Zachary Svajda
USA4
Zachary Svajda
#72ATP
1718ELO
1690Hard ELO
$631kYTD
$1.9MCAREER
23 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWLLWLW
Nava E.
6-4 6-4
Svajda Z.
Nava E.
662
Svajda Z.
440

Emilio Nava defeated Zachary Svajda 6-4 6-4 in the Knoxville CH quarter-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Zachary Svajda came in ranked #72, defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

  • Match story: Emilio Nava edged a tight contest from start to finish — 6–4 6–4.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Svajda Z.

Svajda Z.serving85% hold

wins 66% 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.Svajda Z.
40
Serve
30
16
Return
12

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

Statistics

This season
Nava E.Svajda Z.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
53%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Even
64%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.7
5.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.0
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Svajda Z.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
69
Break points saved·Slight edge
94
89
Break points won·Dominant
17
66
Deciding sets·Clear edge
89
69
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
75

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry Score
Svajda Z.
7.2
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.1Hard Elo 1621
Surface ELO
5.9+69 Hard Elo edge
4.8Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
5.2Overall Elo 1718
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.1
Surface form
8.5
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.0
Minutes 14d
9.0
7.0
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Nava E.Svajda Z.
Freshness·Clear edge
100
86

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Svajda Z.: 10 days rest · 3 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

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