Rafael JodarESPVS
Casper RuudNORhard Elo: Rafael Jodar 1887, Casper Ruud 1852. 35 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Rafael Jodar vs Casper Ruud match analysis →Upcoming matches, surface Elo ratings and CourtValue analysis, organised by tournament.
Rafael JodarESPVS
Casper RuudNORhard Elo: Rafael Jodar 1887, Casper Ruud 1852. 35 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Rafael Jodar vs Casper Ruud match analysis →
Daniil MedvedevRUSVS
Tommy PaulUSAhard Elo: Daniil Medvedev 1943, Tommy Paul 1872. 71 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniil Medvedev vs Tommy Paul match analysis →clay Elo: Radu Mihai Papoe 1451, Zdenek Kolar 1446. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Radu Mihai Papoe vs Zdenek Kolar match analysis →clay Elo: Buvaysar Gadamauri 1371, Felix Gill 1413. 42 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Buvaysar Gadamauri vs Felix Gill match analysis →clay Elo: Max Wiskandt 1244, Massimo Giunta 1281. 37 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Max Wiskandt vs Massimo Giunta match analysis →
Gianluca CadenassoITAVS
Marvin MoellerGERclay Elo: Gianluca Cadenasso 1443, Marvin Moeller 1553. 110 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gianluca Cadenasso vs Marvin Moeller match analysis →
Mattia BellucciITAhard Elo: Alexander Shevchenko 1582, Mattia Bellucci 1666. 84 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Shevchenko vs Mattia Bellucci match analysis →
Shintaro MochizukiJPNVS
Yosuke WatanukiJPNhard Elo: Shintaro Mochizuki 1497, Yosuke Watanuki 1507. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Shintaro Mochizuki vs Yosuke Watanuki match analysis →
Tomas MachacCZEVSLDLiam DraxlCANhard Elo: Tomas Machac 1759, Liam Draxl 1563. 197 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tomas Machac vs Liam Draxl match analysis →hard Elo: Martin Landaluce 1604, Keegan Smith 1411. 193 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Martin Landaluce vs Keegan Smith match analysis →clay Elo: Lorenzo Giustino 1422, Zsombor Piros 1660. 238 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Lorenzo Giustino vs Zsombor Piros match analysis →
Luka MikrutCROclay Elo: Alejo Sanchez Quilez 1293, Luka Mikrut 1691. 398 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alejo Sanchez Quilez vs Luka Mikrut match analysis →
Marco TrungellitiARGVS
Francesco PassaroITAclay Elo: Marco Trungelliti 1626, Francesco Passaro 1511. 115 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Marco Trungelliti vs Francesco Passaro match analysis →
Matej DodigCROVSTBTristan BoyerUSAclay Elo: Matej Dodig 1597, Tristan Boyer 1557. 40 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matej Dodig vs Tristan Boyer match analysis →
Michael MmohUSAVS
Luca NardiITAhard Elo: Michael Mmoh 1564, Luca Nardi 1550. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Michael Mmoh vs Luca Nardi match analysis →
Jacob FearnleyGBRVSMMMaxim MrvaCZEhard Elo: Jacob Fearnley 1649, Maxim Mrva 1508. 141 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jacob Fearnley vs Maxim Mrva match analysis →
Tom GentzschGERVS
Damir DzumhurBIHhard Elo: Tom Gentzsch 1506, Damir Dzumhur 1576. 70 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tom Gentzsch vs Damir Dzumhur match analysis →
Maks KasnikowskiPOLVS
Stefano TravagliaITAhard Elo: Maks Kasnikowski 1434, Stefano Travaglia 1500. 67 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Maks Kasnikowski vs Stefano Travaglia match analysis →hard Elo: Matteo Martineau 1366, Sascha Gueymard Wayenburg 1577. 211 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matteo Martineau vs Sascha Gueymard Wayenburg match analysis →hard Elo: Felix Balshaw 1581, Mika Brunold 1483. 98 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Felix Balshaw vs Mika Brunold match analysis →
Jerome KymSUIVS
Dominic StrickerSUIhard Elo: Jerome Kym 1625, Dominic Stricker 1532. 93 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jerome Kym vs Dominic Stricker match analysis →
Nicolai Budkov KjaerNORhard Elo: Hugo Gaston 1670, Nicolai Budkov Kjaer 1547. 122 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hugo Gaston vs Nicolai Budkov Kjaer match analysis →clay Elo: Francisco Comesana 1607, Genaro Alberto Olivieri 1420. 188 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Francisco Comesana vs Genaro Alberto Olivieri match analysis →clay Elo: Juan Manuel La Serna 1447, Franco Roncadelli 1412. 35 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Juan Manuel La Serna vs Franco Roncadelli match analysis →
Juan Carlos Prado AngeloBOLclay Elo: Franco Roncadelli 1412, Juan Carlos Prado Angelo 1528. 116 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Franco Roncadelli vs Juan Carlos Prado Angelo match analysis →clay Elo: Thiago Seyboth Wild 1591, Nicolas Kicker 1430. 161 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Thiago Seyboth Wild vs Nicolas Kicker match analysis →clay Elo: Nicolas Kicker 1430, Facundo Mena 1472. 42 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nicolas Kicker vs Facundo Mena match analysis →
Luka PavlovicFRAVSISIlia Simakin—hard Elo: Luka Pavlovic 1469, Ilia Simakin 1675. 206 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Luka Pavlovic vs Ilia Simakin match analysis →
Adam WaltonAUSVSBZBeibit ZhukayevKAZhard Elo: Adam Walton 1638, Beibit Zhukayev 1390. 248 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Adam Walton vs Beibit Zhukayev match analysis →hard Elo: Alexander Shevchenko 1582, Daniil Glinka 1510. 73 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Shevchenko vs Daniil Glinka match analysis →
Stefanos SakellaridisGREhard Elo: Petr Bar Biryukov 1382, Stefanos Sakellaridis 1598. 216 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Petr Bar Biryukov vs Stefanos Sakellaridis match analysis →hard Elo: Gabriel Diallo 1660, Harold Mayot 1614. 46 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gabriel Diallo vs Harold Mayot match analysis →
Taro DanielJPNVS
Nikoloz BasilashviliGEOhard Elo: Taro Daniel 1529, Nikoloz Basilashvili 1595. 66 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Taro Daniel vs Nikoloz Basilashvili match analysis →
Roman SafiullinRUSVSIIIlya Ivashka—hard Elo: Roman Safiullin 1742, Ilya Ivashka 1548. 194 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Roman Safiullin vs Ilya Ivashka match analysis →
Rafael JodarESPVS
Daniil MedvedevRUShard Elo: Rafael Jodar 1887, Daniil Medvedev 1943. 56 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Rafael Jodar vs Daniil Medvedev match analysis →
Alexander ZverevGERVS
Alejandro Davidovich FokinaESPhard Elo: Alexander Zverev 2045, Alejandro Davidovich Fokina 1856. 189 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Zverev vs Alejandro Davidovich Fokina match analysis →clay Elo: Felix Gill 1413, Radu Mihai Papoe 1451. 39 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Felix Gill vs Radu Mihai Papoe match analysis →hard Elo: Martin Landaluce 1604, Liam Draxl 1563. 41 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Martin Landaluce vs Liam Draxl match analysis →
Mattia BellucciITAVS
Shintaro MochizukiJPNhard Elo: Mattia Bellucci 1666, Shintaro Mochizuki 1497. 169 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Mattia Bellucci vs Shintaro Mochizuki match analysis →clay Elo: Zsombor Piros 1660, Alejo Sanchez Quilez 1293. 366 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Zsombor Piros vs Alejo Sanchez Quilez match analysis →
Maks KasnikowskiPOLVS
Damir DzumhurBIHhard Elo: Maks Kasnikowski 1434, Damir Dzumhur 1576. 143 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Maks Kasnikowski vs Damir Dzumhur match analysis →
Jerome KymSUIVSMBMika BrunoldSUIhard Elo: Jerome Kym 1625, Mika Brunold 1483. 142 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jerome Kym vs Mika Brunold match analysis →clay Elo: Thiago Seyboth Wild 1591, Nicolas Kicker 1430. 161 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Thiago Seyboth Wild vs Nicolas Kicker match analysis →Browse every published prediction date. Each daily page links to its individual match predictions, results and analysis.