Sho ShimabukuroJPNVS
Roman SafiullinRUShard Elo: Sho Shimabukuro 1543, Roman Safiullin 1753. 210 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sho Shimabukuro vs Roman Safiullin match analysis →DAILY ATP & CHALLENGER RESEARCH · TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2026
Today's tennis matchups
An independent daily overview of 66 matches: surface ratings, rankings, form indicators, conditions and the statistical challenges that could shape each contest. This editorial page does not publish or imply CourtValue Official Picks.
66matches analysed
Almaty ATPKAZAKHSTAN · HARDHARD6matches
Sho ShimabukuroJPNVSRoman SafiullinRUS
Stefanos TsitsipasGREVS
Aleksandar KovacevicUSAhard Elo: Stefanos Tsitsipas 1855, Aleksandar Kovacevic 1619. 236 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stefanos Tsitsipas vs Aleksandar Kovacevic match analysis →
Terence AtmaneFRAVS
Rinky HijikataAUShard Elo: Terence Atmane 1683, Rinky Hijikata 1685. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Terence Atmane vs Rinky Hijikata match analysis →
Rei SakamotoJPNVS
Karen KhachanovRUShard Elo: Rei Sakamoto 1680, Karen Khachanov 1810. 130 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Rei Sakamoto vs Karen Khachanov match analysis →
Fabian MarozsanHUNVS
Timofey SkatovKAZhard Elo: Fabian Marozsan 1699, Timofey Skatov 1484. 215 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Fabian Marozsan vs Timofey Skatov match analysis →
Mattia BellucciITAVS
Tomas Martin EtcheverryARGhard Elo: Mattia Bellucci 1666, Tomas Martin Etcheverry 1715. 49 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Mattia Bellucci vs Tomas Martin Etcheverry match analysis →Brussels ATPBELGIUM · HARDHARD9matches
Mariano NavoneARGVS
Juan Manuel CerundoloARGhard Elo: Mariano Navone 1713, Juan Manuel Cerundolo 1690. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Mariano Navone vs Juan Manuel Cerundolo match analysis →
Dino PrizmicCROVS
Damir DzumhurBIHhard Elo: Dino Prizmic 1713, Damir Dzumhur 1611. 103 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Dino Prizmic vs Damir Dzumhur match analysis →
Toby SamuelGBRVS
Zizou BergsBELhard Elo: Toby Samuel 1725, Zizou Bergs 1755. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Toby Samuel vs Zizou Bergs match analysis →
Botic Van De ZandschulpNEDVS
Clement ChidekhFRAhard Elo: Botic Van De Zandschulp 1807, Clement Chidekh 1616. 191 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Botic Van De Zandschulp vs Clement Chidekh match analysis →
Nishesh BasavareddyUSAVS
Raphael CollignonBELhard Elo: Nishesh Basavareddy 1672, Raphael Collignon 1732. 60 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nishesh Basavareddy vs Raphael Collignon match analysis →
Tallon GriekspoorNEDVSMSMax SchoenhausGERhard Elo: Tallon Griekspoor 1741, Max Schoenhaus 1340. 402 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tallon Griekspoor vs Max Schoenhaus match analysis →
Jan Lennard StruffGERVS
Marcos GironUSAhard Elo: Jan Lennard Struff 1667, Marcos Giron 1642. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Jan Lennard Struff vs Marcos Giron match analysis →
David GoffinBELVSRBRemy BertolaSUIhard Elo: David Goffin 1601, Remy Bertola 1450. 151 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
David Goffin vs Remy Bertola match analysis →
Jacob FearnleyGBRVSHGHugo GastonFRAhard Elo: Jacob Fearnley 1676, Hugo Gaston 1648. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Jacob Fearnley vs Hugo Gaston match analysis →Lyon ATPFRANCE · HARDHARD8matches
Ugo HumbertFRAVS
Corentin MoutetFRAhard Elo: Ugo Humbert 1797, Corentin Moutet 1694. 103 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Ugo Humbert vs Corentin Moutet match analysis →
Matteo BerrettiniITAVSKJKyrian JacquetFRAhard Elo: Matteo Berrettini 1777, Kyrian Jacquet 1682. 95 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matteo Berrettini vs Kyrian Jacquet match analysis →SWStan WawrinkaSUIVSMLMartin LandaluceESP
hard Elo: Stan Wawrinka 1638, Martin Landaluce 1589. 48 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stan Wawrinka vs Martin Landaluce match analysis →
Daniel AltmaierGERVS
Titouan DroguetFRAhard Elo: Daniel Altmaier 1627, Titouan Droguet 1773. 147 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Altmaier vs Titouan Droguet match analysis →
Luca Van AsscheFRAVS
Clement TaburFRAhard Elo: Luca Van Assche 1709, Clement Tabur 1506. 203 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Luca Van Assche vs Clement Tabur match analysis →
Benjamin BonziFRAVS
Cameron NorrieGBRhard Elo: Benjamin Bonzi 1690, Cameron Norrie 1779. 89 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Benjamin Bonzi vs Cameron Norrie match analysis →PHPierre Hugues HerbertFRAVS
Sebastian BaezARG
Sebastian BaezARGhard Elo: Pierre Hugues Herbert 1536, Sebastian Baez 1689. 152 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Pierre Hugues Herbert vs Sebastian Baez match analysis →
Arthur FeryGBRVSBGBorna GojoCROhard Elo: Arthur Fery 1729, Borna Gojo 1598. 130 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Arthur Fery vs Borna Gojo match analysis →Cali ChallengerCOLOMBIA · CLAYCLAY10matches
HCHernan CasanovaARGVS
Gonzalo BuenoPER
Gonzalo BuenoPERclay Elo: Hernan Casanova 1364, Gonzalo Bueno 1479. 115 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hernan Casanova vs Gonzalo Bueno match analysis →MSMatias SotoCHIVSSHSamuel HerediaCOL
clay Elo: Matias Soto 1407, Samuel Heredia 1084. 322 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matias Soto vs Samuel Heredia match analysis →GVGonzalo VillanuevaARGVSMTMiguel TobonCOL
clay Elo: Gonzalo Villanueva 1356, Miguel Tobon 1319. 37 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gonzalo Villanueva vs Miguel Tobon match analysis →
Nicolas JarryCHIVS
Tomas Barrios VeraCHIclay Elo: Nicolas Jarry 1642, Tomas Barrios Vera 1532. 109 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nicolas Jarry vs Tomas Barrios Vera match analysis →NHNick HardtDOMVSFCFrancisco ComesanaARG
clay Elo: Nick Hardt 1412, Francisco Comesana 1601. 190 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nick Hardt vs Francisco Comesana match analysis →FMFacundo MenaARGVSVAValerio AboianARG
clay Elo: Facundo Mena 1470, Valerio Aboian 1371. 99 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Facundo Mena vs Valerio Aboian match analysis →
Hugo DellienBOLVSJMJuan Manuel La SernaARGclay Elo: Hugo Dellien 1614, Juan Manuel La Serna 1497. 117 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hugo Dellien vs Juan Manuel La Serna match analysis →
Daniel Elahi GalanCOLVSJPJuan Pablo VarillasPERclay Elo: Daniel Elahi Galan 1455, Juan Pablo Varillas 1505. 51 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Elahi Galan vs Juan Pablo Varillas match analysis →FCFederico CoriaARGVS
Nicolas MejiaCOL
Nicolas MejiaCOLclay Elo: Federico Coria 1464, Nicolas Mejia 1570. 106 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Federico Coria vs Nicolas Mejia match analysis →TSThiago Seyboth WildBRAVSNKNicolas KickerARG
clay Elo: Thiago Seyboth Wild 1639, Nicolas Kicker 1440. 199 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Thiago Seyboth Wild vs Nicolas Kicker match analysis →Florence ChallengerITALY · CLAYCLAY10matches
IIIvan IvanovBULVSEDEnrico Dalla ValleITA
clay Elo: Ivan Ivanov 1179, Enrico Dalla Valle 1440. 261 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Ivan Ivanov vs Enrico Dalla Valle match analysis →FRFilippo RomanoITAVSFCFilip Cristian JianuROU
clay Elo: Filippo Romano 1223, Filip Cristian Jianu 1338. 115 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Filippo Romano vs Filip Cristian Jianu match analysis →RMRadu Mihai PapoeROUVSOROriol Roca BatallaESP
clay Elo: Radu Mihai Papoe 1519, Oriol Roca Batalla 1392. 127 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Radu Mihai Papoe vs Oriol Roca Batalla match analysis →ANAndrej NedicBIHVSGPGabriele PirainoITA
clay Elo: Andrej Nedic 1406, Gabriele Piraino 1345. 61 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Andrej Nedic vs Gabriele Piraino match analysis →
Henry SearleGBRVSMGMassimo GiuntaITAclay Elo: Henry Searle 1345, Massimo Giunta 1412. 67 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Henry Searle vs Massimo Giunta match analysis →MRMichele RibecaiITAVSJVJacopo VasamiITA
clay Elo: Michele Ribecai 1346, Jacopo Vasami 1437. 91 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Michele Ribecai vs Jacopo Vasami match analysis →MWMatthew William DonaldCZEVSCSCarlos Sanchez JoverESP
clay Elo: Matthew William Donald 1450, Carlos Sanchez Jover 1396. 54 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matthew William Donald vs Carlos Sanchez Jover match analysis →FGFelix GillGBRVS
Filip MisolicAUT
Filip MisolicAUTclay Elo: Felix Gill 1455, Filip Misolic 1645. 190 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Felix Gill vs Filip Misolic match analysis →YMYanaki MilevBULVSLGLorenzo GiustinoITA
clay Elo: Yanaki Milev 1469, Lorenzo Giustino 1433. 36 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Yanaki Milev vs Lorenzo Giustino match analysis →SKSandro KoppAUTVS
Gianluca CadenassoITA
Gianluca CadenassoITAclay Elo: Sandro Kopp 1336, Gianluca Cadenasso 1532. 195 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sandro Kopp vs Gianluca Cadenasso match analysis →Fort Worth ChallengerUSA · HARDHARD7matches
Max Hans RehbergGERVSMRMees RottgeringNEDhard Elo: Max Hans Rehberg 1478, Mees Rottgering 1559. 81 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Max Hans Rehberg vs Mees Rottgering match analysis →
Jenson BrooksbyUSAVSMKMitchell KruegerUSAhard Elo: Jenson Brooksby 1699, Mitchell Krueger 1443. 256 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jenson Brooksby vs Mitchell Krueger match analysis →SGSebastian GorznyUSAVSIRIgor Ribeiro MarcondesBRA
hard Elo: Sebastian Gorzny 1463, Igor Ribeiro Marcondes 1445. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Sebastian Gorzny vs Igor Ribeiro Marcondes match analysis →AGAlastair GrayGBRVSLMLui MaxtedGBR
hard Elo: Alastair Gray 1278, Lui Maxted 1311. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Alastair Gray vs Lui Maxted match analysis →JJJ J WolfUSAVSTZTyler ZinkUSA
hard Elo: J J Wolf 1568, Tyler Zink 1276. 292 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
J J Wolf vs Tyler Zink match analysis →AMAidan MayoUSAVS
Colton SmithUSA
Colton SmithUSAhard Elo: Aidan Mayo 1428, Colton Smith 1493. 65 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Aidan Mayo vs Colton Smith match analysis →EWEdward WinterAUSVSTLTimo LegoutFRA
hard Elo: Edward Winter 1339, Timo Legout 1524. 185 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Edward Winter vs Timo Legout match analysis →Guangzhou ChallengerCHINA · HARDHARD10matches
KMKoki MatsudaJPNVSYZYi ZhouCHN
hard Elo: Koki Matsuda 1192, Yi Zhou 1465. 272 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Koki Matsuda vs Yi Zhou match analysis →KSKhumoun SultanovUZBVSLCLuca CastelnuovoSUI
hard Elo: Khumoun Sultanov 1334, Luca Castelnuovo 1245. 89 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Khumoun Sultanov vs Luca Castelnuovo match analysis →
Liam BroadyGBRVSDPDominik PalanCZEhard Elo: Liam Broady 1477, Dominik Palan 1132. 344 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Liam Broady vs Dominik Palan match analysis →
Yu Hsiou HsuTPEVSJCJie CuiCHNhard Elo: Yu Hsiou Hsu 1416, Jie Cui 1354. 62 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Yu Hsiou Hsu vs Jie Cui match analysis →SFSergey FominUZBVSTSTristan SchoolkateAUS
hard Elo: Sergey Fomin 1264, Tristan Schoolkate 1529. 265 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sergey Fomin vs Tristan Schoolkate match analysis →KSKasidit SamrejTHAVSRNRio NoguchiJPN
hard Elo: Kasidit Samrej 1382, Rio Noguchi 1464. 82 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Kasidit Samrej vs Rio Noguchi match analysis →
Zhizhen ZhangCHNVSKUKaichi UchidaJPNhard Elo: Zhizhen Zhang 1558, Kaichi Uchida 1261. 298 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Zhizhen Zhang vs Kaichi Uchida match analysis →HMHayato MatsuokaJPNVSYWYibing WuCHN
hard Elo: Hayato Matsuoka 1414, Yibing Wu 1714. 301 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hayato Matsuoka vs Yibing Wu match analysis →OMOgnjen MilicSRBVS
Jay Dylan Hara FriendJPN
Jay Dylan Hara FriendJPNhard Elo: Ognjen Milic 1401, Jay Dylan Hara Friend 1545. 144 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Ognjen Milic vs Jay Dylan Hara Friend match analysis →KSKeegan SmithUSAVSMPMax PurcellAUS
hard Elo: Keegan Smith 1385, Max Purcell 1606. 220 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Keegan Smith vs Max Purcell match analysis →Lisbon ChallengerPORTUGAL · CLAYCLAY6matches
Sumit NagalINDVSASAlejo Sanchez QuilezESPclay Elo: Sumit Nagal 1507, Alejo Sanchez Quilez 1433. 74 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sumit Nagal vs Alejo Sanchez Quilez match analysis →
Andrea PellegrinoITAVS
Pol Martin TiffonESPclay Elo: Andrea Pellegrino 1569, Pol Martin Tiffon 1424. 144 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Andrea Pellegrino vs Pol Martin Tiffon match analysis →
Marco TrungellitiARGVSTPTiago PereiraPORclay Elo: Marco Trungelliti 1622, Tiago Pereira 1334. 289 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Marco Trungelliti vs Tiago Pereira match analysis →
Carlos TabernerESPVS
Alexander RitschardSUIclay Elo: Carlos Taberner 1563, Alexander Ritschard 1557. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Carlos Taberner vs Alexander Ritschard match analysis →RBRaul BrancaccioITAVSCHCalvin HemeryFRA
clay Elo: Raul Brancaccio 1412, Calvin Hemery 1444. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Raul Brancaccio vs Calvin Hemery match analysis →BHBenjamin HassanLEBVS
Nikolas Sanchez IzquierdoESP
Nikolas Sanchez IzquierdoESPclay Elo: Benjamin Hassan 1440, Nikolas Sanchez Izquierdo 1512. 72 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Benjamin Hassan vs Nikolas Sanchez Izquierdo match analysis →