Chris Rodesch vs Paul Jubb — Charlottesville CH Round of 16

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
LUX
Chris Rodesch
#191ATP
1622ELO
1623Hard ELO
$163kYTD
$424kCAREER
24 yrs · 198 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWLLLLWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 28 October 2024
hard
GBR8
Paul Jubb
#338ATP
1426ELO
1403Hard ELO
26 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWWLWLW
Rodesch C.
6-7 7-5 6-4
Jubb P.
Rodesch C.
67762
Jubb P.
79541

Chris Rodesch defeated Paul Jubb 6-7 7-5 6-4 in the Charlottesville CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Chris Rodesch came in ranked #191, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Rodesch C.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Jubb P.

Jubb P.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Rodesch C.

Even serve battle

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
Rodesch C.Jubb P.
1st serve in·Slight edge
68%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
50%
Service points won·Even
65%
62%
Return points won·Even
38%
40%
Break points saved·Even
62%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.4
4.0
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.1
3.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (94 vs 102). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Rodesch C.Jubb P.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
37
Break points saved·Even
87
84
Break points won·Even
5
6
Deciding sets·Dominant
81
44
Tiebreaks·Even
74
73

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Rodesch C.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 44 days (−0.7)
Jubb P.
4.2
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 49 days (−0.7)
Form & Matchup
8.0+220 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.0Hard Elo 1403
7.9Overall Elo 1622
ELO gap
2.1Overall Elo 1426
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.0
Surface form
4.8
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
Rodesch C.Jubb P.
Freshness·Even
100
100

Rodesch C.: 19 days rest · Jubb P.: 19 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Trotter J.
Basavareddy N.
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Basavareddy N.
Galarneau A.
6-46-2
Trotter J.
Tien L.[2]
6-33-66-2
Quarter-finals
Basavareddy N.
Rodesch C.
6-46-767-65
Galarneau A.
Quinn E.
6-36-2
Trotter J.
Smith C.
7-642-67-64
Tien L.[2]
Lajal M.
3-66-16-4
R16
Basavareddy N.
Zahraj P.
6-26-0
Rodesch C.
Jubb P.[8]
6-777-56-4
Galarneau A.
Dietrich D.
6-27-65
Quinn E.
Kasnikowski M.[5]
7-56-0
Smith C.
Opelka R.
6-756-46-4
Trotter J.
Holt B.
6-26-3
Lajal M.
Kypson P.[6]
7-646-3
Tien L.[2]
Mejia N.
6-47-68
R32
Kasnikowski M.[5]
Edmund K.
4-66-46-2
Zahraj P.
Eubanks C.[1]
6-17-67
Basavareddy N.
Spizzirri E.
6-46-3
Rodesch C.
Nanda G.
6-46-3
Jubb P.[8]
Kodat T.
6-46-2
Dietrich D.
Svajda Z.[4]
6-36-3
Galarneau A.
Nakagawa N.
6-46-1
Quinn E.
Couacaud E.
6-17-67
Opelka R.
Popko D.[7]
5-76-17-61
Smith C.
Ilagan A.
6-37-5
Holt B.
Rybakov A.
7-56-4
Trotter J.
Krueger M.[3]
7-57-66
Kypson P.[6]
Tomic B.
6-36-0
Lajal M.
Searle H.
6-36-3
Mejia N.
Kudla D.
0-66-37-5
Tien L.[2]
Zhukayev B.
2-66-46-2