Clement Tabur vs Martin Landaluce — Pau CH Round of 16

Pau CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Clement Tabur
FRA
Clement Tabur
#189ATP
1607ELO
1573Hard ELO
$199kYTD
$640kCAREER
26 yrs · 173 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLLWWLWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 9 February 2026
hard
Martin Landaluce
ESP
Martin Landaluce
1727ELO
1685Hard ELO
$742kYTD
$1.5MCAREER
20 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWLWWL
Tabur C.
6-3 6-3
Landaluce M.
Tabur C.
662
Landaluce M.
330

Clement Tabur defeated Martin Landaluce 6-3 6-3 in the Pau CH round of 16 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Martin Landaluce came in defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Tabur C.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Landaluce M.

Landaluce M.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Tabur C.

Serve advantage — Tabur C.

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
Tabur C.Landaluce M.
1st serve in·Even
60%
64%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
51%
Service points won·Even
65%
63%
Return points won·Even
40%
38%
Break points saved·Even
62%
64%
Aces / match·Even
4.5
4.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (32 vs 30). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Tabur C.Landaluce M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
29
59
Break points saved·Clear edge
74
92
Break points won·Slight edge
23
17
Deciding sets·Dominant
33
89
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
40
58

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tabur C.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Landaluce M.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
3.8Hard Elo 1573
Surface ELO
6.2+112 Hard Elo edge
3.9Overall Elo 1607
ELO gap
6.1Overall Elo 1727
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.2
Surface form
0.9
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
6.1
Minutes 14d
7.8
0.0
3-set count
4.0
Prev. match
6.0
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
Tabur C.Landaluce M.
Freshness·Slight edge
87
97

Tabur C.: 4 days rest · 1 match, 26 games (7d) · Landaluce M.: 12 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Collignon R.[1]
Bonzi B.[7]
7-656-1
Semi-finals
Collignon R.[1]
Tabur C.
7-56-4
Bonzi B.[7]
Squire H.
7-666-4
Quarter-finals
Collignon R.[1]
Van Assche L.[6]
6-26-4
Tabur C.
Echargui M.[8]
6-746-26-4
Bonzi B.[7]
Bouquier A.
6-796-46-4
Squire H.
Shevchenko A.[2]
6-757-667-64
R16
Bonzi B.[7]
Riedi L.
6-37-64
Tabur C.
Landaluce M.
6-36-3
Bouquier A.
Nardi L.[4]
6-44-67-65
Van Assche L.[6]
Kolar Z.
1-66-36-4
Collignon R.[1]
Damm M.
7-657-65
Echargui M.[8]
Klein L.
6-26-2
Squire H.
Zeppieri G.
3-66-36-3
Shevchenko A.[2]
Glinka D.
6-36-776-1
R32
Klein L.
Added D.
5-2
Zeppieri G.
Goffin D.[5]
7-665-76-1
Squire H.
Kouame M.
6-37-5
Van Assche L.[6]
Kotov P.
6-33-0
Bonzi B.[7]
Kukushkin M.
5-77-637-63
Bouquier A.
Skatov T.
4-66-47-65
Echargui M.[8]
Engel J.
7-626-4
Riedi L.
Balshaw F.
6-706-36-2
Shevchenko A.[2]
Chidekh C.
6-47-66
Glinka D.
Lajal M.
6-34-3
Tabur C.
Blockx A.[3]
6-16-4
Landaluce M.
Prihodko O.
6-42-67-64
Nardi L.[4]
Kym J.
6-47-63
Collignon R.[1]
Zahraj P.
7-56-2
Damm M.
Bertola R.
7-56-3
Kolar Z.
Trotter J.
3-67-656-4