Egor Gerasimov vs Mohamed Safwat — Glasgow CH Round of 32

Glasgow CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
BLR
Egor Gerasimov
33 yrs · 196 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 12 February 2024
hard
EGY
Mohamed Safwat
#1884ATP
35 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWLLWLLLW
Gerasimov E.
6-1 7-6
Safwat M.
Gerasimov E.
6772
Safwat M.
1620

Egor Gerasimov defeated Mohamed Safwat 6-1 7-6 in the Glasgow CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Egor Gerasimov came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Egor Gerasimov extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Egor Gerasimov came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 6–1 7–6.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2016-03-04Davis Cup G2 R1: EGY vs BLRRRclayEgor Gerasimov6-7(2) 7-5 7-5 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Gerasimov E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Safwat M.

Safwat M.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Gerasimov 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

Statistics

This season
Gerasimov E.Safwat M.
1st serve in·Slight edge
64%
54%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
62%
Return points won·Even
35%
37%
Break points saved·Even
61%
61%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.5
3.3
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.8
3.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (77 vs 20). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Gerasimov E.Safwat M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
44
8
Break points saved·Clear edge
88
64
Break points won·Slight edge
8
2
Deciding sets·Dominant
70
17
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
40
21

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Gerasimov E.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Safwat M.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
4.8
Surface form
5.7
0.0Lost last 4
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
7.5
Minutes 14d
7.8
4.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
2.0
7.0
Surface transition
6.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Chidekh C.
Jubb P.
0-66-46-1
Semi-finals
Chidekh C.
Guinard M.[4]
6-36-4
Jubb P.
Ejupovic E.
4-67-636-3
Quarter-finals
Ejupovic E.
Parker S.
W/O
Jubb P.
Searle H.
6-44-66-2
Guinard M.[4]
Kuhn N.
7-646-3
Chidekh C.
Stewart H.
4-66-46-4
R16
Parker S.
Edmund K.
7-647-65
Guinard M.[4]
Gerasimov E.
6-36-4
Jubb P.
Robertson C.
6-26-2
Ejupovic E.
Broom C.[8]
6-46-3
Stewart H.
Strombachs R.
1-67-56-1
Chidekh C.
Taberner C.
6-46-2
Kuhn N.
Diez S.[6]
6-36-1
Searle H.
Cox D.
6-46-4
R32
Guinard M.[4]
Blockx A.
6-15-74-1
Robertson C.
Colson T.
6-47-63
Edmund K.
Kuzmanov D.[2]
6-32-66-2
Searle H.
Vesely J.[5]
7-656-4
Cox D.
Kym J.
6-36-4
Diez S.[6]
Oliel Y.
6-45-77-65
Chidekh C.
Zuk K.
7-56-2
Gerasimov E.
Safwat M.
6-17-62
Stewart H.
Hemery C.[1]
6-46-4
Strombachs R.
Matusevich A.
7-636-1
Taberner C.
Jorda Sanchis D.[7]
5-77-646-4
Kuhn N.
Celikbilek A.
6-36-3
Jubb P.
Maestrelli F.
6-45-76-3
Broom C.[8]
Mchugh A.
4-66-27-65
Ejupovic E.
Lock B.
7-56-4
Parker S.
Peliwo F.
6-46-3