Terence Atmane vs Mark Lajal — Shanghai CH Round of 32

Shanghai CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Terence Atmane
FRA2
Terence Atmane
#50ATP
1704ELO
1674Hard ELO
$707kYTD
$2.2MCAREER
24 yrs · 193 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 2 September 2024
hard
EST
Mark Lajal
#159ATP
1589ELO
1556Hard ELO
$97kYTD
$654kCAREER
23 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWLWLW
Atmane T.
7-6 1-6 6-1
Lajal M.
Atmane T.
77162
Lajal M.
64611

Terence Atmane defeated Mark Lajal 7-6 1-6 6-1 in the Shanghai CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Terence Atmane came in ranked #50, defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

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

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Atmane T.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Lajal M.

Lajal M.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Atmane T.

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

Serve & return on hard

Atmane T.Lajal M.
36
Serve
—
27
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Atmane T.Lajal M.
1st serve in·Even
59%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
50%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
35%
38%
Break points saved·Even
63%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.5
6.0
Double faults / match·Even
3.8
3.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (157 vs 159). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Atmane T.Lajal M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
56
43
Break points saved·Slight edge
95
89
Break points won·Clear edge
25
13
Deciding sets·Clear edge
54
42
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
96
81

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Atmane T.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Lajal M.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.0+117 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.0Hard Elo 1556
7.1Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
2.9Overall Elo 1589
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
5.6
Surface form
7.0
Win streak
7.04-match win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
4.4
3-set count
4.0
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Atmane T.Lajal M.
Freshness·Slight edge
95
86

Atmane T.: 12 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Lajal M.: 4 days rest · 1 match, 28 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Shimabukuro S.
Hsu Y.[9]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Hsu Y.[9]
Gombos N.
6-36-4
Shimabukuro S.
Wong C.[4]
6-37-62
Quarter-finals
Hsu Y.[9]
Van Wyk K.
7-642-66-2
Gombos N.
Kachmazov A.
6-727-636-4
Wong C.[4]
Zhukayev B.
7-666-3
Shimabukuro S.
Svrcina D.
6-47-5
R16
Hsu Y.[9]
Watanuki Y.
2-66-44-0
Van Wyk K.
Gomez F.
6-46-4
Gombos N.
Polmans M.
6-46-2
Kachmazov A.
Cressy M.[8]
4-67-636-3
Zhukayev B.
Barrios Vera T.[7]
7-646-727-5
Wong C.[4]
Peniston R.
6-26-3
Svrcina D.
Hong S.[5]
7-56-3
Shimabukuro S.
Atmane T.[2]
6-46-3
R32
Van Wyk K.
Garin C.[1]
6-36-1
Hsu Y.[9]
Wu Y.
6-753-3
Barrios Vera T.[7]
Sun F.
6-47-5
Shimabukuro S.
Bai Y.
7-56-3
Gomez F.
Noguchi R.
7-57-64
Zhukayev B.
Rai A.
2-66-37-63
Watanuki Y.
Te R.
6-47-5
Polmans M.
Yunchaokete B.[3]
6-33-66-3
Gombos N.
Jubb P.
6-46-2
Kachmazov A.
Fatic N.
6-37-67
Cressy M.[8]
Mott B.
6-16-1
Peniston R.
Zhou Y.
6-46-2
Wong C.[4]
Gerasimov E.
7-646-1
Hong S.[5]
Wu T.
6-726-46-4
Svrcina D.
Mejia N.
6-16-1
Atmane T.[2]
Lajal M.
7-641-66-1