Jesper De Jong vs Camilo Ugo Carabelli — Bastad Semi-final

Bastad · ATP · Semi-final
Jesper De Jong
NED
Jesper De Jong
#73ATP
1711ELO
1696Clay ELO
$612kYTD
$2.3MCAREER
26 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLWLWWWWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 14 July 2025
clay
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
ARG5
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
#58ATP
1759ELO
1741Clay ELO
$653kYTD
$2.7MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWLWLW
De Jong J.
6-3 7-6
Ugo Carabelli C.
De Jong J.
6772
Ugo Carabelli C.
3630

Jesper De Jong defeated Camilo Ugo Carabelli 6-3 7-6 in the Bastad semi-final on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Camilo Ugo Carabelli came in ranked #58, defending last year's round of 32, but Jesper De Jong had been the form player, winning 6 of their last 8 on clay. Jesper De Jong extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2024-01-15Australian OpenQ3hardJesper De Jong7-6(3) 3-6 7-6(7)

Serve vs return

This season
De Jong J.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Ugo Carabelli C.

Ugo Carabelli C.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs De Jong J.

Serve advantage — De Jong J.

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 clay

De Jong J.Ugo Carabelli C.
49
Serve
24
32
Return
36

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the clay field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
De Jong J.Ugo Carabelli C.
1st serve in·Even
58%
62%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
49%
Service points won·Even
63%
61%
Return points won·Even
38%
38%
Break points saved·Even
58%
60%
Aces / match·Dominant
6.8
3.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.4
2.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (83 vs 87). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
De Jong J.Ugo Carabelli C.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
56
78
Break points saved·Even
90
90
Break points won·Dominant
37
62
Deciding sets·Dominant
69
96
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
57
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
De Jong J.
4.5
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Ugo Carabelli C.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
3.6Clay Elo 1696
Surface ELO
6.4+45 Clay Elo edge
3.5Overall Elo 1711
ELO gap
6.5Overall Elo 1759
2.8
H2H
7.2
5.2
Surface form
5.1
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
6.0
Minutes 14d
8.4
4.0
3-set count
7.0
0.0
Prev. match
6.0
3.0
Surface transition
3.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
De Jong J.Ugo Carabelli C.
Freshness·Clear edge
78
100

De Jong J.: 1 day rest · 1 match, 25 games (7d) · Ugo Carabelli C.: 15 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Weather
22°CDrizzle
Wind 14 km/hHumidity 69%
Final
Darderi L.[2]
De Jong J.
6-43-66-3
Semi-finals
Darderi L.[2]
Cerundolo F.[1]
6-23-67-63
De Jong J.
Ugo Carabelli C.[5]
6-37-63
Quarter-finals
Darderi L.[2]
Baez S.[8]
6-06-2
De Jong J.
Griekspoor T.[2]
4-67-636-3
Cerundolo F.[1]
Dzumhur D.[7]
6-03-66-3
Ugo Carabelli C.[5]
Misolic F.
6-37-5
R16
Cerundolo F.[1]
Navone M.[4]
6-36-3
Darderi L.[2]
Ymer E.
6-26-2
Misolic F.
Borges N.[5]
3-67-616-3
Griekspoor T.[2]
Pellegrino A.
4-67-666-3
De Jong J.
Kopriva V.[8]
7-637-5
Dzumhur D.[7]
Gaston H.
4-66-26-2
Ugo Carabelli C.[5]
Van De Zandschulp B.[6]
7-635-76-3
Baez S.[8]
Budkov Kjaer N.
3-66-27-5
R32
Darderi L.[2]
Collignon R.
6-22-66-2
Misolic F.
Moller E.[1]
6-33-67-5
Navone M.[4]
Barrios Vera T.
7-57-5
Kopriva V.[8]
Dellien H.
6-13-0
Gaston H.
Tseng C.
6-46-3
Dzumhur D.[7]
Ofner S.
6-46-4
Budkov Kjaer N.
Monteiro T.
5-76-37-62
Van De Zandschulp B.[6]
Ymer M.
6-46-1
De Jong J.
Rejchtman Vinciguerra W.
6-36-2
Ymer E.
Boyer T.
6-33-66-2
Pellegrino A.
Faria J.
2-66-36-3
Ugo Carabelli C.[5]
Garin C.
6-46-4