Emilio Nava vs Jack Pinnington Jones — Nottingham 2 CH Round of 32

Nottingham 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1560Grass ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 16 June 2025
grass
GBR
Jack Pinnington Jones
#170ATP
1557ELO
1535Grass ELO
$211kYTD
$552kCAREER
23 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLLWLLLL
Nava E.
6-3 6-7 6-3
Pinnington Jones J.
Nava E.
661062
Pinnington Jones J.
371231

Emilio Nava defeated Jack Pinnington Jones 6-3 6-7 6-3 in the Nottingham 2 CH round of 32 on grass. The result followed the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91.

Key context

  • Match story: Emilio Nava closed it out in three sets, 6–3 6–7 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Nava E.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Pinnington Jones J.

Pinnington Jones J.serving84% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Nava E.

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
Nava E.Pinnington Jones J.
1st serve in·Even
63%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
48%
Service points won·Even
65%
62%
Return points won·Even
38%
38%
Break points saved·Even
64%
63%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.4
5.2
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.0
4.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (120 vs 60). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Nava E.Pinnington Jones J.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
66
Break points saved·Slight edge
94
89
Break points won·Dominant
17
50
Deciding sets·Slight edge
89
78
Tiebreaks·Dominant
23
69

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Nava E.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Pinnington Jones J.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.5+26 Grass Elo edge
Surface ELO
5.5Grass Elo 1535
6.0Overall Elo 1704
ELO gap
4.0Overall Elo 1557
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.7
Surface form
7.0
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
6.4
Minutes 14d
1.1
3-set count
0.0
9.0
Prev. match
6.0
7.0
Surface transition
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
Nava E.Pinnington Jones J.
Freshness·Even
100
98

Nava E.: 15 days rest · Pinnington Jones J.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

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