Ryan Peniston vs Daniel Elahi Galan — Nottingham 2 CH Round of 32

Nottingham 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Ryan Peniston
GBR
Ryan Peniston
#417ATP
1441ELO
1440Grass ELO
30 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 16 June 2025
grass
Daniel Elahi Galan
COL5
Daniel Elahi Galan
#304ATP
1531ELO
1492Grass ELO
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWWW
Peniston R.
5-7 6-4 6-2
Galan D.
Peniston R.
5662
Galan D.
7421

Ryan Peniston defeated Daniel Elahi Galan 5-7 6-4 6-2 in the Nottingham 2 CH round of 32 on grass.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Peniston R.serving81% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Galan D.

Galan D.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Peniston R.

Serve advantage — Peniston R.

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
Peniston R.Galan D.
1st serve in·Even
64%
64%
1st serve points won·Even
66%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
50%
Service points won·Even
61%
62%
Return points won·Slight edge
44%
39%
Break points saved·Even
57%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
2.2
4.1
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.4
2.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (50 vs 82). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Peniston R.Galan D.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
20
48
Break points saved·Dominant
60
92
Break points won·Even
25
21
Deciding sets·Clear edge
36
55
Tiebreaks·Dominant
15
66

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Peniston R.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Galan D.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
4.4Grass Elo 1440
Surface ELO
5.6+52 Grass Elo edge
3.9Overall Elo 1441
ELO gap
6.1Overall Elo 1531
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
0.8
Surface form
5.8
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
8.2
Minutes 14d
9.0
Prev. match
Surface transition
3.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Cilic M.[2]
Mochizuki S.
6-26-3
Semi-finals
Mochizuki S.
Smith C.
6-26-2
Cilic M.[2]
Landaluce M.
6-766-47-67
Quarter-finals
Mochizuki S.
Faria J.
6-26-0
Cilic M.[2]
Barrios Vera T.[6]
6-16-3
Landaluce M.
Atmane T.
6-736-26-3
Smith C.
Nava E.
6-756-46-4
R16
Cilic M.[2]
Harris L.
2-66-43-1
Barrios Vera T.[6]
Schoolkate T.
6-27-68
Landaluce M.
Mannarino A.
4-67-57-5
Atmane T.
Fery A.
5-76-36-4
Faria J.
Choinski J.
7-56-3
Smith C.
Mccabe J.
5-76-36-3
Mochizuki S.
Boyer T.[8]
6-26-3
Nava E.
Peniston R.
7-656-4
R32
Atmane T.
Gigante M.
4-66-46-4
Mochizuki S.
Herbert P.
6-47-67
Peniston R.
Galan D.[5]
5-76-46-2
Mccabe J.
Loffhagen G.
6-37-64
Smith C.
Trungelliti M.
6-24-66-3
Barrios Vera T.[6]
Trotter J.
6-36-4
Harris L.
Royer V.
7-666-2
Cilic M.[2]
Grenier H.
6-36-2
Nava E.
Pinnington Jones J.
6-36-7106-3
Landaluce M.
Budkov Kjaer N.
6-22-66-2
Schoolkate T.
Blockx A.
6-36-2
Boyer T.[8]
Krueger M.
6-17-5
Choinski J.
Spizzirri E.
5-76-46-4
Faria J.
Holt B.[3]
6-36-4
Fery A.
Fognini F.
6-37-65
Mannarino A.
Cazaux A.[7]
6-46-3