Tallon Griekspoor vs Botic Van De Zandschulp — s Hertogenbosch Round of 32

s Hertogenbosch · ATP · Round of 32
Tallon Griekspoor
NED6
Tallon Griekspoor
#58ATP
1789ELO
1721Grass ELO
$970kYTD
$8.1MCAREER
30 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWWLWW
2 — 1
Sets
Wednesday, 10 June 2026 ·
grass
CENTRE COURT · 1st on
Botic Van De Zandschulp
NED
Botic Van De Zandschulp
#54ATP
1743ELO
1595Grass ELO
$690kYTD
$6.6MCAREER
30 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLWL
Griekspoor T.
6-2 6-7 6-4
Van De Zandschulp B.
Griekspoor T.
66262
Van De Zandschulp B.
27741

Tallon Griekspoor reeled off five straight games on the way to a 6-2 6-7 6-4 win over Botic Van De Zandschulp in the s Hertogenbosch round of 32.

Around the match

  • “Tallon and I have always had a nice time together here. I love his family. Every time I come back, it feels like I can recharge mentally. That's really important for me. I enjoy being able to support Tallon and watch his matches. Hopefully we can both go far this week!”

    Van De Zandschulp B.libema-open.nl ↗

  • “I did everything I could to recover in time. But after consulting with medical professionals, it's clear that playing next week is not possible.”

    Griekspoor T.NU ↗

  • “I'm therefore enormously disappointed that I have to withdraw from my home tournament. This tournament has a special place in my heart.”

    Griekspoor T.NU ↗

Quotes belong to their sources, linked above.

Key context

  • Set 2, game 7: A 13-point game with four deuces went Botic Van De Zandschulp's way.
  • Set 3, game 1: Tallon Griekspoor broke serve.
  • Pressure points: Tallon Griekspoor converted 5 of 10 break points; Botic Van De Zandschulp converted 2 of 6 break points.

Pressure & serve by court

Griekspoor T.
Van De Zandschulp B.
Break points won
5/10
2/6
Break points saved
4/6
5/10

Break points from this match. Serve-by-court shows the share of service points won from each side of the court; the court side alternates every point.

Head to head

2–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-01-27MontpellierR32hardTallon Griekspoor7-5 6-3
2023-01-16Australian OpenR64hardTallon Griekspoor6-4 6-4 6-4
2022-08-22Winston-SalemR32hardBotic Van De Zandschulp7-6(5) 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Griekspoor T.serving88% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Van De Zandschulp B.

Van De Zandschulp B.serving91% hold

wins 71% of points on serve vs Griekspoor T.

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
Griekspoor T.Van De Zandschulp B.
1st serve in·Even
63%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
73%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
53%
46%
Service points won·Even
65%
63%
Return points won·Slight edge
33%
38%
Break points saved·Even
61%
59%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.2
6.2
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.8
4.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (21 vs 20). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Griekspoor T.Van De Zandschulp B.
Clutch Rating·Even
76
77
Break points saved·Even
99
98
Break points won·Dominant
34
68
Deciding sets·Clear edge
94
79
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
97
81

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

Win Probability

Pre-match · updated 12:21 UTC
Griekspoor T.72%
Van De Zandschulp B.28%
Toss-up
50–58%
Slight edge
58–67%
Clear favourite
67–80%
Strong favourite
80%+

Clear favourite · Griekspoor T. clearly ahead, but no certainty

Calibrated model · 65% favourite accuracy (2025–26, out-of-sample). Probability is a statistical estimate, not a certainty. How it works.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Griekspoor T.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Van De Zandschulp B.
4.5
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
7.1+169 Grass Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.9Grass Elo 1600
5.8Overall Elo 1823
ELO gap
4.2Overall Elo 1758
5.0First meeting on grass
H2H
5.0First meeting on grass
6.36 of last 10 on grass
Surface form
3.23 of last 10 on grass
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
8.5Home country · 9/12 here
Country comfort
4.0Home country · 0/3 here
3.0Clay → Grass
Surface transition
3.0Clay → Grass
Context
5.0Didn't play here last year
Defending pts
5.0Didn't play here last year

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
Griekspoor T.Van De Zandschulp B.
Freshness·Slight edge
96
91

Griekspoor T.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Van De Zandschulp B.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Weather
15°CDrizzle
Wind 12 km/hHumidity 62%
R32
R16
Quarter-finals
Semi-finals
Final
—
Hurkacz H.
Fucsovics M.
6-36-756-74
Virtanen O.
Majchrzak K.
7-674-66-74
Mccabe J.
Bergs Z.[8]
6-726-27-64
—
Boogaard T.
Wu Y.
6-32-66-4
Borges N.
Atmane T.
6-46-4
Cilic M.
Shapovalov D.[7]
6-756-47-5
Griekspoor T.[6]
Van De Zandschulp B.
6-26-726-4
Zhang Z.
Brooksby J.
7-645-76-1
Diallo G.
Mannarino A.
4-66-35-7
—
Humbert U.[5]
Ymer E.
6-46-3
Bonzi B.
Rottgering M.
6-46-4
Munar J.
Damm M.
4-64-6
—
Auger Aliassime F.[1]
Fucsovics M.
6-36-4
Majchrzak K.
Mccabe J.
6-06-3
Medvedev D.[3]
Boogaard T.
6-34-67-66
Borges N.
Cilic M.
6-36-753-6
Griekspoor T.[6]
Zhang Z.
6-754-6
Mannarino A.
Rinderknech A.[4]
7-653-66-3
Humbert U.[5]
Bonzi B.
4-66-33-6
Damm M.
De Minaur A.[2]
6-785-7
Auger Aliassime F.[1]
Majchrzak K.
4-63-6
Medvedev D.[3]
Cilic M.
6-23-66-1
Zhang Z.
Mannarino A.
6-743-6
Bonzi B.
De Minaur A.[2]
2-64-6
Majchrzak K.
Medvedev D.[3]
7-646-1
Mannarino A.
De Minaur A.[2]
4-60-6
Majchrzak K.
De Minaur A.[2]
6-32-67-65