Nerman Fatic vs Adrian Andreev — Vicenza CH Quarter-final

Vicenza CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
BIH
Nerman Fatic
#396ATP
1496ELO
1478Clay ELO
31 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 27 May 2024
clay
BUL
Adrian Andreev
#1122ATP
25 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLLL
Fatic N.
6-4 6-3
Andreev A.
Fatic N.
662
Andreev A.
430

Nerman Fatic defeated Adrian Andreev 6-4 6-3 in the Vicenza CH quarter-final on clay. The result followed the form book — Nerman Fatic came in ranked #396, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

  • Match story: Nerman Fatic closed it out in two sets, 6–4 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Fatic N.serving70% hold

wins 58% of points on serve vs Andreev A.

Andreev A.serving68% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Fatic N.

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

Statistics

This season
Fatic N.Andreev A.
1st serve in·Even
63%
65%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
65%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
62%
60%
Return points won·Even
39%
40%
Break points saved·Even
57%
56%
Aces / match·Clear edge
4.5
2.6
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.1
1.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (92 vs 88). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Fatic N.Andreev A.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
24
37
Break points saved·Slight edge
63
53
Break points won·Clear edge
36
14
Deciding sets·Dominant
24
55
Tiebreaks·Dominant
35
94

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Fatic N.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Andreev A.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
1.9
Surface form
6.0
0.0Lost last 3
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
6.8
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
6.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Tseng C.
Trungelliti M.[5]
6-36-2
Semi-finals
Tseng C.
Passaro F.[1]
6-36-3
Trungelliti M.[5]
Fatic N.
6-34-67-5
Quarter-finals
Fatic N.
Andreev A.
6-46-3
Passaro F.[1]
Popko D.
6-33-66-4
Tseng C.
Dellien Velasco M.
6-46-3
Trungelliti M.[5]
Barrios Vera T.[3]
2-66-37-63
R16
Popko D.
Arnaboldi F.
6-36-1
Passaro F.[1]
Cecchinato M.
6-36-2
Tseng C.
Prado Angelo J.
7-656-0
Dellien Velasco M.
Travaglia S.[8]
6-16-2
Trungelliti M.[5]
Berrettini J.
6-46-3
Barrios Vera T.[3]
Fonio G.
7-56-4
Andreev A.
Olivieri G.[6]
6-36-3
Fatic N.
Dougaz A.
6-27-61
R32
Berrettini J.
Rodriguez Taverna S.
7-667-65
Fatic N.
Skatov T.
6-46-0
Tseng C.
Yevseyev D.[4]
7-666-3
Passaro F.[1]
Janvier M.
6-16-2
Cecchinato M.
Neumayer L.
6-36-4
Popko D.
Iannaccone F.
6-42-66-1
Arnaboldi F.
Sachko V.[7]
7-56-1
Prado Angelo J.
Gaubas V.
6-46-726-4
Dellien Velasco M.
Kirkin E.
6-36-1
Travaglia S.[8]
Vincent Ruggeri S.
6-26-2
Trungelliti M.[5]
Carboni L.
6-46-2
Fonio G.
Agamenone F.
7-657-5
Barrios Vera T.[3]
Barranco Cosano J.
6-13-66-2
Olivieri G.[6]
Pacheco Mendez R.
6-46-3
Andreev A.
Kachmazov A.
7-6107-5
Dougaz A.
Piros Z.[2]
7-56-4