Jakub Mensik vs Nerman Fatic — Manama CH Round of 16

Manama CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Jakub Mensik
CZE4
Jakub Mensik
#19ATP
1931ELO
1893Hard ELO
$2.0MYTD
$6.9MCAREER
20 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWWWWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 12 February 2024
hard
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1417Hard ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
Mensik J.
6-1 6-4
Fatic N.
Mensik J.
662
Fatic N.
140

Jakub Mensik defeated Nerman Fatic 6-1 6-4 in the Manama CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Jakub Mensik came in ranked #19.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Mensik J.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

Fatic N.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Mensik J.

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

Mensik J.Fatic N.
42
Serve
—
51
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Mensik J.Fatic N.
1st serve in·Even
59%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
76%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
50%
Service points won·Even
65%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
39%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
58%
Aces / match·Dominant
11.2
4.5
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.7
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (146 vs 92). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Mensik J.Fatic N.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
88
24
Break points saved·Dominant
98
63
Break points won·Dominant
77
36
Deciding sets·Dominant
92
24
Tiebreaks·Dominant
99
35

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Mensik J.
8.3
Dominant favouriteUmpiry Score
Fatic N.
5.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
10.0+476 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
0.0Hard Elo 1417
10.0Overall Elo 1931
ELO gap
0.0Overall Elo 1496
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.2
Surface form
5.3
Fatigue & Travel
9.1
Minutes 14d
8.5
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
5.0
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
Mensik J.Fatic N.
Freshness·
90
—

Mensik J.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Kukushkin M.
Gasquet R.[5]
7-656-4
Semi-finals
Gasquet R.[5]
Dzumhur D.[7]
6-37-64
Kukushkin M.
Mensik J.[4]
6-36-2
Quarter-finals
Mensik J.[4]
Trungelliti M.
6-32-1
Kukushkin M.
Shelbayh A.
6-46-4
Dzumhur D.[7]
Rincon D.
6-46-4
Gasquet R.[5]
Harris B.
5-76-16-2
R16
Mensik J.[4]
Fatic N.
6-16-4
Rincon D.
Lokoli L.
3-66-16-4
Harris B.
Elias G.
6-26-2
Gasquet R.[5]
Buldorini P.
7-56-3
Dzumhur D.[7]
Andreev A.
6-06-1
Trungelliti M.
Dougaz A.
7-56-757-5
Kukushkin M.
Ritschard A.
6-46-4
Shelbayh A.
Fognini F.[2]
3-67-656-0
R32
Rincon D.
Durasovic V.
6-41-67-5
Buldorini P.
Peniston R.
2-4
Harris B.
Oconnell C.[1]
7-660-0
Fatic N.
Oliveira G.
7-637-65
Trungelliti M.
Klein L.[6]
6-43-66-3
Mensik J.[4]
Basilashvili N.
6-36-4
Kukushkin M.
Svrcina D.
6-26-2
Lokoli L.
Kopriva V.[3]
6-16-4
Dzumhur D.[7]
Giannessi A.
6-36-1
Elias G.
Ilkel C.
3-66-17-66
Gasquet R.[5]
Huesler M.
6-36-4
Andreev A.
Virtanen O.
6-16-2
Dougaz A.
Molleker R.
6-36-1
Ritschard A.
Ymer E.[8]
6-26-4
Shelbayh A.
Kovalik J.
7-646-3
Fognini F.[2]
Qaed Y.
6-16-1