Mark Lajal vs Zizou Bergs — Sumter CH Round of 16

Sumter CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
EST
Mark Lajal
#164ATP
1589ELO
1556Hard ELO
$97kYTD
$654kCAREER
23 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWLWLW
2 — 0
Sets
Tuesday, 12 August 2025
hard
Zizou Bergs
BEL1
Zizou Bergs
#37ATP
1808ELO
1757Hard ELO
$995kYTD
$4.0MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWWWLL
Lajal M.
6-4 6-3
Bergs Z.
Lajal M.
662
Bergs Z.
430

Mark Lajal defeated Zizou Bergs 6-4 6-3 in the Sumter CH round of 16 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Zizou Bergs came in ranked #37, leading the head-to-head 1–0. Mark Lajal claimed a first win over Zizou Bergs in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

  • Match story: Mark Lajal closed it out in two sets, 6–4 6–3.

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-06-09s HertogenboschQFgrassZizou Bergs7-6(2) 7-6(4)

Serve vs return

This season
Lajal M.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Bergs Z.

Bergs Z.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Lajal M.

Even serve battle

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

Lajal M.Bergs Z.
—
Serve
25
—
Return
40

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

Statistics

This season
Lajal M.Bergs Z.
1st serve in·Even
62%
58%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
63%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Even
63%
61%
Aces / match·Even
5.9
6.5
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.8
4.2

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (91 vs 78). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Lajal M.Bergs Z.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
43
69
Break points saved·Slight edge
89
95
Break points won·Slight edge
13
21
Deciding sets·Dominant
42
92
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
81
91

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Lajal M.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Bergs Z.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
2.3Hard Elo 1556
Surface ELO
7.7+201 Hard Elo edge
2.2Overall Elo 1589
ELO gap
7.8Overall Elo 1808
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.6
Surface form
4.6
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.7
Minutes 14d
8.2
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Lajal M.Bergs Z.
Freshness·Slight edge
84
74

Lajal M.: 3 days rest · 1 match, 28 games (7d) · Bergs Z.: 8 days rest · 4 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Bellucci M.[3]
Shevchenko A.[5]
7-653-1
Semi-finals
Shevchenko A.[5]
Mochizuki S.[7]
4-66-16-1
Bellucci M.[3]
Faria J.[9]
6-06-4
Quarter-finals
Shevchenko A.[5]
Basilashvili N.[6]
3-67-634-1
Faria J.[9]
Lajal M.
5-76-47-68
Bellucci M.[3]
Klein L.[8]
6-46-2
Mochizuki S.[7]
Misolic F.[4]
6-44-66-4
R16
Faria J.[9]
Bigun K.
3-66-04-1
Shevchenko A.[5]
Shimabukuro S.
6-36-3
Misolic F.[4]
Trotter J.
6-37-61
Basilashvili N.[6]
Cassone M.
2-66-36-1
Bellucci M.[3]
Rocha H.
7-656-4
Lajal M.
Bergs Z.[1]
6-46-3
Mochizuki S.[7]
Poling K.
6-36-0
Klein L.[8]
Mccabe J.
7-56-1
R32
Klein L.[8]
Seggerman R.
6-40-0
Mccabe J.
Fearnley J.
3-67-50-0
Bigun K.
Sakamoto R.
6-36-1
Faria J.[9]
Habib H.
6-796-17-5
Mochizuki S.[7]
Rybakov A.
7-57-62
Trotter J.
Landaluce M.
6-46-3
Cassone M.
Blanch D.
7-53-66-3
Shimabukuro S.
Nishioka Y.
6-37-5
Poling K.
Evans D.
1-66-46-4
Rocha H.
Damm M.
3-66-36-4
Basilashvili N.[6]
Eubanks C.
6-33-67-5
Lajal M.
Kirchheimer S.
1-66-37-5