Colton Smith vs Emilio Nava — Nottingham 2 CH Quarter-final

Nottingham 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
USA
Colton Smith
#181ATP
1577ELO
1543Grass ELO
$154kYTD
$480kCAREER
23 yrs
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWLLWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 16 June 2025
grass
Emilio Nava
USA
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1560Grass ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
Smith C.
6-7 6-4 6-4
Nava E.
Smith C.
65662
Nava E.
77441

Colton Smith defeated Emilio Nava 6-7 6-4 6-4 in the Nottingham 2 CH quarter-final on grass. The upset overturned the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Smith C.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Nava E.serving87% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Smith C.

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
Smith C.Nava E.
1st serve in·Even
65%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
69%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
50%
Service points won·Even
63%
65%
Return points won·Even
39%
38%
Break points saved·Even
64%
65%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
7.6
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.3
3.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (80 vs 120). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Smith C.Nava E.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
62
52
Break points saved·Even
94
94
Break points won·Dominant
52
17
Deciding sets·Even
92
89
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
8
23

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Smith C.
4.4
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Nava E.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.2Grass Elo 1543
Surface ELO
5.8+17 Grass Elo edge
2.4Overall Elo 1577
ELO gap
7.6Overall Elo 1704
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.9
Surface form
2.7
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
3.9
Minutes 14d
6.4
0.0
3-set count
8.0
Prev. match
9.0
Surface transition
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
Smith C.Nava E.
Freshness·Even
100
96

Smith C.: 18 days rest · Nava E.: 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