Mark Lajal vs Patrick Kypson — Charlottesville CH Round of 16

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
EST
Mark Lajal
#159ATP
1589ELO
1556Hard ELO
$97kYTD
$654kCAREER
23 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 28 October 2024
hard
Patrick Kypson
USA6
Patrick Kypson
#112ATP
1641ELO
1611Hard ELO
$260kYTD
$1.1MCAREER
26 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWLLLWWL
Lajal M.
7-6 6-3
Kypson P.
Lajal M.
7762
Kypson P.
6430

Mark Lajal defeated Patrick Kypson 7-6 6-3 in the Charlottesville CH round of 16 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Patrick Kypson came in ranked #112, defending last year's semi-final.

Key context

  • Match story: Mark Lajal closed it out in two sets, 7–6 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Lajal M.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Kypson P.

Kypson P.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Lajal M.

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

Statistics

This season
Lajal M.Kypson P.
1st serve in·Even
62%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
75%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
53%
Service points won·Even
64%
67%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Even
62%
66%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.9
7.7
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.7
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (159 vs 139). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Lajal M.Kypson P.
Clutch Rating·Even
43
42
Break points saved·Even
89
93
Break points won·Dominant
13
41
Deciding sets·Dominant
42
17
Tiebreaks·Even
81
77

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Lajal M.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Kypson P.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.2Hard Elo 1556
Surface ELO
5.8+55 Hard Elo edge
4.4Overall Elo 1589
ELO gap
5.6Overall Elo 1641
10.0No prior meetings
H2H
0.0
7.1
Surface form
5.7
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
5.4
Minutes 14d
5.1
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
8.5

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
Lajal M.Kypson P.
Freshness·Slight edge
88
94

Lajal M.: 5 days rest · 1 match, 28 games (7d) · Kypson P.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). 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