Martin Damm vs Daniil Glinka — Charlottesville CH Quarter-final

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Martin Damm
USA6
Martin Damm
#104ATP
1706ELO
1657Hard ELO
$338kYTD
$910kCAREER
22 yrs · 203 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWLWWWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 27 October 2025
hard
EST
Daniil Glinka
#167ATP
1477ELO
1491Hard ELO
$127kYTD
$264kCAREER
26 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLLLLWLW
Damm M.
6-7 6-4 6-4
Glinka D.
Damm M.
63662
Glinka D.
77441

Martin Damm defeated Daniil Glinka 6-7 6-4 6-4 in the Charlottesville CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Martin Damm came in ranked #104.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Damm M.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Glinka D.

Glinka D.serving91% hold

wins 71% of points on serve vs Damm M.

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
Damm M.Glinka D.
1st serve in·Even
62%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
80%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
53%
Service points won·Even
69%
65%
Return points won·Slight edge
33%
39%
Break points saved·Even
65%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
12.7
6.2
Double faults / match·Dominant
4.0
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (73 vs 77). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Damm M.Glinka D.
Clutch Rating·Even
26
23
Break points saved·Slight edge
93
82
Break points won·Slight edge
1
9
Deciding sets·Even
5
6
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
84
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Damm M.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Glinka D.
4.3
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
6.4+166 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.6Hard Elo 1491
6.6Overall Elo 1706
ELO gap
3.4Overall Elo 1477
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.9
Surface form
6.0
Fatigue & Travel
0.4
Minutes 14d
5.2
0.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
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
Damm M.Glinka D.
Freshness·Slight edge
92
86

Damm M.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d) · Glinka D.: 5 days rest · 1 match, 20 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Jodar R.[7]
Damm M.[6]
6-37-62
Semi-finals
Damm M.[6]
Rosenkranz M.
7-636-4
Jodar R.[7]
Monday J.[8]
6-44-2
Quarter-finals
Rosenkranz M.
Tarvet O.
6-16-0
Damm M.[6]
Glinka D.
6-736-46-4
Monday J.[8]
Krueger M.
6-46-4
Jodar R.[7]
Dietrich D.
7-56-3
R16
Rosenkranz M.
Hijikata R.[1]
6-36-4
Glinka D.
Zahraj P.
7-646-2
Damm M.[6]
Smith K.
6-17-5
Krueger M.
Suresh D.
7-654-66-3
Jodar R.[7]
Purtseladze S.
6-46-0
Tarvet O.
Montes De La Torre I.
5-76-47-63
Dietrich D.
Clarke J.[4]
7-666-2
Monday J.[8]
Kingsley C.
6-46-716-1
R32
Hijikata R.[1]
Soto M.
4-67-56-3
Rosenkranz M.
Martin A.
6-44-66-3
Montes De La Torre I.
Ilagan A.
5-77-616-4
Tarvet O.
Mejia N.[5]
6-46-2
Glinka D.
Kypson P.[3]
6-36-3
Zahraj P.
Kwiatkowski T.
7-56-3
Smith K.
Blanch D.
4-66-36-2
Damm M.[6]
Broom C.
6-36-3
Jodar R.[7]
Cassone M.
6-47-5
Purtseladze S.
Wiskandt M.
7-57-64
Clarke J.[4]
Zink T.
6-26-4
Monday J.[8]
Karki R.
6-37-5
Krueger M.
Kasnikowski M.
6-46-757-65
Suresh D.
Draxl L.[2]
6-36-3
Kingsley C.
Boulais J.
6-36-3
Dietrich D.
Perez A.
6-36-4