Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Ivan Gakhov — Munich Round of 32

Munich · ATP · Round of 32
Botic Van De Zandschulp
NED
Botic Van De Zandschulp
#54ATP
1743ELO
1690Clay ELO
$690kYTD
$6.6MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 15 April 2024
clay
Ivan Gakhov
RUS
Ivan Gakhov
#387ATP
1430ELO
1384Clay ELO
29 yrs · 191 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWLLLLW
Van De Zandschulp B.
6-4 2-6 6-3
Gakhov I.
Van De Zandschulp B.
6262
Gakhov I.
4631

Botic Van De Zandschulp defeated Ivan Gakhov 6-4 2-6 6-3 in the Munich round of 32 on clay. The result followed the form book — Botic Van De Zandschulp came in ranked #54, defending last year's final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Gakhov I.

Gakhov I.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

Serve advantage — Van De Zandschulp B.

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

Van De Zandschulp B.Gakhov I.
33
Serve
—
74
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Van De Zandschulp B.Gakhov I.
1st serve in·Even
62%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
47%
48%
Service points won·Even
63%
61%
Return points won·Even
39%
38%
Break points saved·Even
59%
61%
Aces / match·Slight edge
5.4
4.4
Double faults / match·Slight edge
4.0
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (144 vs 127). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Van De Zandschulp B.Gakhov I.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
77
34
Break points saved·Clear edge
98
82
Break points won·Dominant
68
9
Deciding sets·Clear edge
78
59
Tiebreaks·Dominant
81
22

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van De Zandschulp B.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Gakhov I.
4.7
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
9.1+306 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
0.9Clay Elo 1384
9.2Overall Elo 1743
ELO gap
0.8Overall Elo 1430
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.4
Surface form
3.2
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.6
Minutes 14d
6.8
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
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
Van De Zandschulp B.Gakhov I.
Freshness·
89
—

Van De Zandschulp B.: 11 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Weather
14°CDrizzle
Wind 16 km/hHumidity 85%
Final
Struff J.[4]
Fritz T.[3]
7-56-3
Semi-finals
Fritz T.[3]
Garin C.
6-36-4
Struff J.[4]
Rune H.[2]
6-26-0
Quarter-finals
Garin C.
Zverev A.[1]
6-46-4
Struff J.[4]
Auger Aliassime F.[5]
7-56-4
Rune H.[2]
Huesler M.
6-47-63
Fritz T.[3]
Draper J.[6]
4-66-37-61
R16
Zverev A.[1]
Rodionov J.
7-636-2
Fritz T.[3]
Moro Canas A.
6-36-1
Struff J.[4]
Van De Zandschulp B.
7-606-4
Rune H.[2]
Galan D.
6-46-2
Garin C.
Michelsen A.
6-776-26-1
Draper J.[6]
Molleker R.
4-66-16-1
Auger Aliassime F.[5]
Daniel T.
6-36-2
Huesler M.
Hanfmann Y.
6-26-4
R32
Rodionov J.
Vukic A.
6-26-3
Michelsen A.
Rehberg M.
7-626-3
Garin C.
Koepfer D.[7]
7-636-3
Auger Aliassime F.[5]
Marterer M.
6-757-667-63
Moro Canas A.
Thiem D.
6-46-4
Molleker R.
Passaro F.
6-46-2
Draper J.[6]
Kopriva V.
6-15-76-4
Daniel T.
Oconnell C.
6-36-4
Hanfmann Y.
Shevchenko A.[8]
6-766-37-5
Huesler M.
Topo M.
3-66-16-3
Galan D.
Ugo Carabelli C.
7-626-4
Van De Zandschulp B.
Gakhov I.
6-42-66-3