Dino Prizmic vs Cem Ilkel — Istanbul CH Round of 32

Istanbul CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Dino Prizmic
CRO
Dino Prizmic
#89ATP
1841ELO
1733Hard ELO
$530kYTD
$1.3MCAREER
20 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWLWWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 2 September 2024
hard
Cem Ilkel
TUR
Cem Ilkel
#1462ATP
30 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLWL
Prizmic D.
6-7 6-3 6-2
Ilkel C.
Prizmic D.
62662
Ilkel C.
77321

Dino Prizmic defeated Cem Ilkel 6-7 6-3 6-2 in the Istanbul CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Dino Prizmic came in ranked #89, defending last year's quarter-final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Prizmic D.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Ilkel C.

Ilkel C.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Prizmic D.

Serve advantage — Prizmic D.

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

Prizmic D.Ilkel C.
34
Serve
—
20
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Prizmic D.Ilkel C.
1st serve in·Even
60%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
49%
Service points won·Even
64%
61%
Return points won·Even
41%
37%
Break points saved·Even
62%
58%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.0
4.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.9
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (121 vs 35). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Prizmic D.Ilkel C.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
71
32
Break points saved·Dominant
92
49
Break points won·Dominant
64
3
Deciding sets·Clear edge
92
70
Tiebreaks·Dominant
37
66

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Prizmic D.
4.5
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Ilkel C.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.2
Surface form
3.2
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
6.7
Minutes 14d
8.1
7.0
3-set count
4.0
Prev. match
9.0
Surface transition
6.0
Context
7.0
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
Prizmic D.Ilkel C.
Freshness·
88
—

Prizmic D.: 9 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Dzumhur D.[1]
Medjedovic H.[5]
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Dzumhur D.[1]
De Jong J.[3]
2-67-57-67
Medjedovic H.[5]
Landaluce M.
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Dzumhur D.[1]
Pinnington Jones J.
6-766-14-0
De Jong J.[3]
Simakin I.
6-737-56-3
Medjedovic H.[5]
Dodig M.
6-06-4
Landaluce M.
Moller E.
6-26-4
R16
Moller E.
Geerts M.
7-666-2
Medjedovic H.[5]
Ymer E.
6-41-1
Dzumhur D.[1]
Prizmic D.
6-26-2
De Jong J.[3]
Agafonov E.
4-66-16-4
Dodig M.
Ajdukovic D.[4]
6-33-67-63
Landaluce M.
Purtseladze S.
6-46-3
Pinnington Jones J.
Lock B.
4-66-16-0
Simakin I.
Brouwer G.
6-04-66-3
R32
Simakin I.
Vesely J.
6-16-4
Dzumhur D.[1]
Berankis R.
2-2
Brouwer G.
Yevseyev D.[8]
6-42-1
Pinnington Jones J.
Dougaz A.
4-66-36-0
Geerts M.
Kukushkin M.[2]
4-66-37-5
De Jong J.[3]
Boitan G.
3-66-26-1
Ajdukovic D.[4]
Ramanathan R.
6-46-3
Medjedovic H.[5]
Pacheco Mendez R.
6-26-4
Lock B.
Holmgren A.[6]
7-636-1
Purtseladze S.
Damm M.[7]
6-36-1
Agafonov E.
Erel Y.
3-66-37-64
Dodig M.
Duran T.
6-36-4
Landaluce M.
Zhukov M.
6-34-66-4
Moller E.
Kirci K.
6-26-1
Prizmic D.
Ilkel C.
6-726-36-2
Ymer E.
Cretu C.
7-656-4