Dino Prizmic vs Vilius Gaubas — Lugano CH Quarter-final

Lugano CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Dino Prizmic
CRO
Dino Prizmic
#84ATP
1841ELO
1733Hard ELO
$530kYTD
$1.3MCAREER
20 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWLLWLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 24 February 2025
hard
LTU7
Vilius Gaubas
#128ATP
1581ELO
1560Hard ELO
$275kYTD
$759kCAREER
21 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWWLLL
Prizmic D.
6-2 6-3
Gaubas V.
Prizmic D.
662
Gaubas V.
230

Dino Prizmic defeated Vilius Gaubas 6-2 6-3 in the Lugano CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Dino Prizmic came in ranked #84. Dino Prizmic claimed a first win over Vilius Gaubas in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2026-02-23SantiagoR16clayVilius Gaubas5-7 7-5 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Prizmic D.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Gaubas V.

Gaubas V.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.Gaubas V.
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.Gaubas V.
1st serve in·Slight edge
59%
69%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
65%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
51%
Service points won·Even
65%
61%
Return points won·Even
41%
39%
Break points saved·Even
64%
62%
Aces / match·Slight edge
3.8
3.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.1
2.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (83 vs 97). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Prizmic D.Gaubas V.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
71
57
Break points saved·Slight edge
92
87
Break points won·Clear edge
64
52
Deciding sets·Slight edge
92
86
Tiebreaks·Dominant
37
7

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Prizmic D.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Gaubas V.
5.1
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.6+174 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.4Hard Elo 1560
7.1Overall Elo 1841
ELO gap
2.9Overall Elo 1581
5.0
H2H
5.0
4.9
Surface form
2.4
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
8.6
Minutes 14d
7.1
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
Context
5.0
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
Prizmic D.Gaubas V.
Freshness·Clear edge
87
70

Prizmic D.: 1 day rest · 1 match, 16 games (7d) · Gaubas V.: 1 day rest · 3 matches, 73 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Coric B.[2]
Collignon R.[1]
6-36-1
Semi-finals
Collignon R.[1]
Cassone M.
7-634-66-3
Coric B.[2]
Prizmic D.
6-26-4
Quarter-finals
Collignon R.[1]
Draxl L.[8]
6-46-4
Cassone M.
Van Assche L.[3]
7-620-67-64
Prizmic D.
Gaubas V.[7]
6-26-3
Coric B.[2]
Squire H.[6]
6-26-2
R16
Collignon R.[1]
Durasovic V.
6-47-5
Gaubas V.[7]
Rottgering M.
6-727-56-4
Coric B.[2]
Escoffier A.
6-46-4
Draxl L.[8]
Ruusuvuori E.
6-47-62
Van Assche L.[3]
Choinski J.
6-36-1
Cassone M.
Grenier H.[5]
7-677-66
Squire H.[6]
Bertola R.
7-656-4
Prizmic D.
Blockx A.[4]
6-36-2
R32
Rottgering M.
Zhukayev B.
4-67-6107-65
Prizmic D.
Paul J.
6-36-2
Gaubas V.[7]
Stricker D.
6-31-66-2
Durasovic V.
Hassan B.
6-41-66-4
Ruusuvuori E.
Chidekh C.
6-33-66-4
Draxl L.[8]
Sakamoto R.
6-46-4
Choinski J.
Zahraj P.
6-26-736-3
Cassone M.
Berankis R.
6-16-2
Blockx A.[4]
Prado Angelo J.
6-26-3
Squire H.[6]
Andreev A.
6-37-5
Escoffier A.
Brunold M.
6-26-3
Bertola R.
Butvilas E.
2-67-57-64
Coric B.[2]
Onclin G.
6-46-2
Collignon R.[1]
Sachko V.
6-47-5
Grenier H.[5]
Cui J.
6-26-4
Van Assche L.[3]
Wu T.
2-66-26-0