Ethan Quinn vs Emilio Nava — Champaign CH Round of 32

Champaign CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Ethan Quinn
USA
Ethan Quinn
#47ATP
1804ELO
1767Hard ELO
$724kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
22 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 13 November 2023
hard
Emilio Nava
USA3
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
Quinn E.
6-3 6-2
Nava E.
Quinn E.
662
Nava E.
320

Ethan Quinn defeated Emilio Nava 6-3 6-2 in the Champaign CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Ethan Quinn came in ranked #47, defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Quinn E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Nava E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Quinn 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

Quinn E.Nava E.
37
Serve
40
21
Return
16

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

Statistics

This season
Quinn E.Nava E.
1st serve in·Even
62%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
62%
64%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.2
7.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.8
3.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (186 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Quinn E.Nava E.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
71
52
Break points saved·Even
95
94
Break points won·Even
19
17
Deciding sets·Slight edge
98
89
Tiebreaks·Dominant
97
23

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Quinn E.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Nava E.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.9+146 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.1Hard Elo 1621
6.4Overall Elo 1804
ELO gap
3.6Overall Elo 1704
5.4No prior meetings
H2H
4.6
5.7
Surface form
6.1
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
2.4
Minutes 14d
4.0
0.0
3-set count
4.0
6.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Quinn E.Nava E.
Freshness·Even
97
100

Quinn E.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Nava E.: 15 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Kypson P.[7]
Michelsen A.[2]
6-46-3
Semi-finals
Michelsen A.[2]
Droguet T.[4]
2-66-46-3
Kypson P.[7]
Quinn E.
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Michelsen A.[2]
Damm M.[8]
6-11-66-4
Kypson P.[7]
Kovacevic A.[1]
7-624-66-3
Quinn E.
Serdarusic N.
6-36-3
Droguet T.[4]
Krueger M.
6-46-1
R16
Quinn E.
Kirchheimer S.
6-16-4
Damm M.[8]
Rosenkranz M.
6-36-4
Serdarusic N.
Zhukayev B.[6]
7-656-4
Kypson P.[7]
Miyoshi K.
6-36-1
Michelsen A.[2]
Fanselow S.
6-36-2
Droguet T.[4]
Holt B.
6-46-3
Kovacevic A.[1]
Ozolins K.
7-656-3
Krueger M.
Rybakov A.
7-656-1
R32
Zhukayev B.[6]
Dalla Valle E.
6-16-1
Holt B.
Montes De La Torre I.
5-76-06-1
Rybakov A.
Rodesch C.
5-76-46-4
Kypson P.[7]
Whitehouse M.
6-17-65
Kovacevic A.[1]
Williams C.
6-32-66-4
Kirchheimer S.
Karlovskiy E.
7-55-4
Krueger M.
Kudla D.[5]
6-747-50-0
Rosenkranz M.
Debru G.
7-673-67-64
Droguet T.[4]
Durasovic V.
6-26-3
Fanselow S.
Mchugh A.
6-24-66-3
Ozolins K.
Kozlov S.
2-66-36-4
Miyoshi K.
Heck H.
6-36-4
Quinn E.
Nava E.[3]
6-36-2
Michelsen A.[2]
Tomic B.
6-46-0
Damm M.[8]
Perez A.
7-636-4
Serdarusic N.
Mayo A.
6-31-66-3