Camilo Ugo Carabelli vs Juan Carlos Prado Angelo — Santa Cruz De La Sierra CH Round of 16

Santa Cruz De La Sierra CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG3
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#59ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 4 March 2024
clay
Juan Carlos Prado Angelo
BOL
Juan Carlos Prado Angelo
#181ATP
1576ELO
1554Clay ELO
$163kYTD
$320kCAREER
21 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLLLLWWWLL
Ugo Carabelli C.
7-6 6-1
Prado Angelo J.
Ugo Carabelli C.
7762
Prado Angelo J.
6310

Camilo Ugo Carabelli defeated Juan Carlos Prado Angelo 7-6 6-1 in the Santa Cruz De La Sierra CH round of 16 on clay. The result followed the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #59, defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

  • Match story: Camilo Ugo Carabelli came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 7–6 6–1.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.serving61% hold

wins 54% of points on serve vs Prado Angelo J.

Prado Angelo J.serving61% hold

wins 54% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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 clay

Ugo Carabelli C.Prado Angelo J.
24
Serve
—
36
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Ugo Carabelli C.Prado Angelo J.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
64%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
50%
Service points won·Even
60%
58%
Return points won·Even
40%
42%
Break points saved·Even
61%
57%
Aces / match·Slight edge
2.7
2.1
Double faults / match·Even
2.4
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (175 vs 138). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Ugo Carabelli C.Prado Angelo J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
78
45
Break points saved·Dominant
90
40
Break points won·Dominant
62
30
Deciding sets·Slight edge
96
91
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
72
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Ugo Carabelli C.
7.5
Dominant favouriteUmpiry Score
Prado Angelo J.
5.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 30 days (−0.3)
Form & Matchup
7.6+187 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.4Clay Elo 1554
7.7Overall Elo 1759
ELO gap
2.3Overall Elo 1576
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
7.5
Surface form
5.8
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
9.0
Minutes 14d
8.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Ugo Carabelli C.Prado Angelo J.
Freshness·Clear edge
97
80

Ugo Carabelli C.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Prado Angelo J.: 1 day rest · 2 matches, 37 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Dellien Velasco M.
6-46-2
Cerundolo J.[1]
Guillen Meza A.[5]
3-66-16-4
Semi-finals
Dellien Velasco M.
Olivo R.
6-12-64-2
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Monteiro T.[1]
6-47-5
Cerundolo J.[1]
Habib H.[4]
7-646-4
Guillen Meza A.[5]
Mena F.[8]
3-66-36-3
Quarter-finals
Monteiro T.[1]
Sakamoto P.
6-16-4
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Oliveira G.
4-67-616-1
Dellien Velasco M.
Burruchaga R.[5]
6-22-66-4
Olivo R.
Cerundolo J.[6]
6-37-64
Guillen Meza A.[5]
Johns G.
6-24-66-3
Cerundolo J.[1]
Sakamoto P.[6]
6-46-3
Habib H.[4]
Prado Angelo J.
7-634-67-5
Mena F.[8]
Aboian L.
6-36-2
R16
Olivo R.
Comesana F.[2]
W/O
Monteiro T.[1]
Aboian V.
6-36-3
Sakamoto P.
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
5-76-06-4
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Prado Angelo J.
7-636-1
Oliveira G.
Olivieri G.[7]
6-46-2
Burruchaga R.[5]
Mager G.
7-6106-1
Dellien Velasco M.
Draxl L.
6-33-67-5
Cerundolo J.[6]
Boitan G.
6-36-1
Aboian L.
Collarini A.[3]
6-31-2
Cerundolo J.[1]
Pereira J.
6-47-5
Habib H.[4]
Soto M.
7-627-5
Mena F.[8]
Lingua Lavallen A.
6-27-5
Sakamoto P.[6]
Casanova H.
6-36-737-63
Prado Angelo J.
Olivo R.[7]
6-23-66-3
Guillen Meza A.[5]
Torres J.
7-56-726-1
Johns G.
Dellien Velasco M.[2]
0-66-47-64
R32
Ugo Carabelli C.[3]
Vallejo A.
7-6105-74-0
Aboian V.
Jubb P.
6-35-76-3
Comesana F.[2]
Sekulic P.
6-756-36-1
Boitan G.
Villanueva G.
6-06-3
Sakamoto P.
Cecchinato M.[8]
6-46-4
Monteiro T.[1]
Lavagno E.
6-26-2
Cerundolo J.[6]
Justo G.
6-36-2
Olivieri G.[7]
Passaro F.
6-26-2
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
Collarini A.
6-16-1
Prado Angelo J.
Gomez F.
6-46-0
Oliveira G.
Weis A.
6-36-3
Burruchaga R.[5]
Kestelboim M.
6-26-4
Mager G.
Bueno G.
6-16-1
Draxl L.
Bicknell B.
3-66-26-3
Dellien Velasco M.
Dellien H.[4]
7-56-1
Olivo R.
Torres J.
6-36-1
Cerundolo J.[1]
Midon L.
1-66-17-5
Pereira J.
Boscardin Dias P.
6-46-2
Lingua Lavallen A.
Villanueva G.
6-46-2
Mena F.[8]
Zanellato N.
7-666-1
Torres J.
Justo G.
7-56-1
Johns G.
Garcia R.
6-46-1
Dellien Velasco M.[2]
Barreto Sanchez D.
6-16-0
Casanova H.
Reis Da Silva J.
6-26-2
Sakamoto P.[6]
Aboian V.
7-656-766-4
Habib H.[4]
Pucinelli De Almeida M.
6-37-64
Soto M.
Schachter N.
3-66-36-3
Prado Angelo J.
Blanch D.
4-66-46-3
Olivo R.[7]
Cuellar Lorberg A.
6-26-2
Aboian L.
Blanch U.
7-656-4
Collarini A.[3]
Gomez E.
6-27-5
Guillen Meza A.[5]
Soriano Barrera A.
7-656-3