Clement Tabur vs Victor Lilov — Tallahassee CH Round of 32

Tallahassee CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Clement Tabur
FRA
Clement Tabur
#178ATP
1607ELO
1553Clay ELO
$199kYTD
$640kCAREER
26 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWLLWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 15 April 2024
clay
USA
Victor Lilov
#1022ATP
22 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLLWWLL
Tabur C.
6-1 6-1
Lilov V.
Tabur C.
662
Lilov V.
110

Clement Tabur defeated Victor Lilov 6-1 6-1 in the Tallahassee CH round of 32 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Tabur C.serving73% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Lilov V.

Lilov V.serving59% hold

wins 54% of points on serve vs Tabur C.

Serve advantage — Tabur C.

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
Tabur C.Lilov V.
1st serve in·Even
61%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
70%
62%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
50%
45%
Service points won·Slight edge
62%
56%
Return points won·Even
40%
39%
Break points saved·Slight edge
60%
49%
Aces / match·Slight edge
3.5
2.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.8
3.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (130 vs 9). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tabur C.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Lilov V.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.7
Surface form
3.8
0.0Lost last 3
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.8
Minutes 14d
8.9
8.0
Prev. match
8.0
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
Tabur C.Lilov V.
Freshness·
55
—

Tabur C.: 1 day rest · 4 matches, 100 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Bergs Z.[2]
Krueger M.
6-47-69
Semi-finals
Bergs Z.[2]
Hemery C.
3-66-44-1
Krueger M.
Kozlov S.
6-33-66-1
Quarter-finals
Hemery C.
Ritschard A.[7]
7-56-736-4
Krueger M.
Schwaerzler J.
7-57-64
Kozlov S.
Crawford O.
6-26-2
Bergs Z.[2]
Melzer G.
6-16-4
R16
Bergs Z.[2]
Tabur C.
7-645-76-3
Schwaerzler J.
Searle H.
6-17-65
Krueger M.
Kwiatkowski T.
7-636-2
Crawford O.
Habib H.
6-36-4
Kozlov S.
Sandgren T.
6-26-756-1
Ritschard A.[7]
Bobrov B.
6-33-66-1
Hemery C.
Denolly C.
6-36-2
Melzer G.
Gomez F.
4-67-687-66
R32
Hemery C.
Kypson P.[3]
7-626-3
Ritschard A.[7]
Kuzuhara B.
6-47-5
Bobrov B.
Bigun K.
4-66-26-4
Kozlov S.
Campana Lee G.
4-66-36-0
Searle H.
Wolf J.[1]
7-57-66
Schwaerzler J.
Fonio G.
6-26-4
Krueger M.
Quinn E.
6-17-62
Kwiatkowski T.
Boyer T.[8]
2-66-26-4
Habib H.
Kudla D.[4]
7-666-4
Crawford O.
Popko D.
6-07-62
Sandgren T.
Damm M.[6]
7-56-3
Denolly C.
Vale D.
6-47-60
Gomez F.
Andrade A.
6-46-4
Melzer G.
Edmund K.
6-46-1
Tabur C.
Lilov V.
6-16-1
Bergs Z.[2]
Kodat T.
6-46-2