James DuckworthAUSVS
Luciano DarderiITAhard Elo: James Duckworth 1625, Luciano Darderi 1724. 99 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
James Duckworth vs Luciano Darderi match analysis →An independent daily overview of 46 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.
James DuckworthAUSVS
Luciano DarderiITAhard Elo: James Duckworth 1625, Luciano Darderi 1724. 99 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
James Duckworth vs Luciano Darderi match analysis →
Facundo Diaz AcostaARGVS
Nikoloz BasilashviliGEOhard Elo: Facundo Diaz Acosta 1546, Nikoloz Basilashvili 1603. 57 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Facundo Diaz Acosta vs Nikoloz Basilashvili match analysis →
Alexander BublikKAZVS
Fabian MarozsanHUNhard Elo: Alexander Bublik 1837, Fabian Marozsan 1699. 138 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Bublik vs Fabian Marozsan match analysis →
Daniil MedvedevRUSVS
Sho ShimabukuroJPNhard Elo: Daniil Medvedev 1955, Sho Shimabukuro 1543. 412 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniil Medvedev vs Sho Shimabukuro match analysis →
Stefanos TsitsipasGREVS
Mikhail KukushkinKAZhard Elo: Stefanos Tsitsipas 1855, Mikhail Kukushkin 1526. 329 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stefanos Tsitsipas vs Mikhail Kukushkin match analysis →
Andrey RublevRUShard Elo: Adrian Mannarino 1664, Andrey Rublev 1829. 165 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Adrian Mannarino vs Andrey Rublev match analysis →
Mattia BellucciITAVS
Tomas Martin EtcheverryARGhard Elo: Mattia Bellucci 1662, Tomas Martin Etcheverry 1699. 37 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Mattia Bellucci vs Tomas Martin Etcheverry 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 →
Mariano NavoneARGVS
Tallon GriekspoorNEDhard Elo: Mariano Navone 1713, Tallon Griekspoor 1741. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Mariano Navone vs Tallon Griekspoor match analysis →
Gauthier OnclinBELVS
Jan Lennard StruffGERhard Elo: Gauthier Onclin 1439, Jan Lennard Struff 1667. 229 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gauthier Onclin vs Jan Lennard Struff match analysis →
Arthur FilsFRAVS
Jaume MunarESPhard Elo: Arthur Fils 1961, Jaume Munar 1780. 181 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Arthur Fils vs Jaume Munar match analysis →
Francisco CerundoloARGhard Elo: Martin Damm 1636, Francisco Cerundolo 1840. 204 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Martin Damm vs Francisco Cerundolo match analysis →
Clement ChidekhFRAVS
Jacob FearnleyGBRhard Elo: Clement Chidekh 1616, Jacob Fearnley 1676. 60 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Clement Chidekh vs Jacob Fearnley 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 →
Lorenzo MusettiITAhard Elo: Moise Kouame 1440, Lorenzo Musetti 1778. 339 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Moise Kouame vs Lorenzo Musetti match analysis →
Corentin MoutetFRAVSFBFelix BalshawFRAhard Elo: Corentin Moutet 1694, Felix Balshaw 1556. 138 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Corentin Moutet vs Felix Balshaw match analysis →
Taylor FritzUSAhard Elo: Pierre Hugues Herbert 1536, Taylor Fritz 1861. 325 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Pierre Hugues Herbert vs Taylor Fritz match analysis →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 →
Benjamin BonziFRAVS
Tommy PaulUSAhard Elo: Benjamin Bonzi 1690, Tommy Paul 1886. 196 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Benjamin Bonzi vs Tommy Paul match analysis →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 →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 →clay Elo: Juan Manuel La Serna 1497, Juan Bautista Torres 1363. 134 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Juan Manuel La Serna vs Juan Bautista Torres match analysis →
Gonzalo BuenoPERclay Elo: Santiago Fa Rodriguez Taverna 1323, Gonzalo Bueno 1479. 156 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Santiago Fa Rodriguez Taverna vs Gonzalo Bueno match analysis →
Nicolas JarryCHIclay Elo: Matheus Pucinelli De Almeida 1498, Nicolas Jarry 1642. 143 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matheus Pucinelli De Almeida vs Nicolas Jarry match analysis →
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 →clay Elo: Gustavo Heide 1595, Juan Pablo Varillas 1505. 90 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gustavo Heide vs Juan Pablo Varillas match analysis →
Filip MisolicAUTVSIAIzan Almazan ValienteESPclay Elo: Filip Misolic 1645, Izan Almazan Valiente 1320. 326 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Filip Misolic vs Izan Almazan Valiente match analysis →clay Elo: Samuele Pieri 1445, Sandro Kopp 1336. 109 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Samuele Pieri vs Sandro Kopp match analysis →clay Elo: Michele Ribecai 1346, Max Houkes 1478. 132 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Michele Ribecai vs Max Houkes match analysis →
Henry SearleGBRVSMWMatthew William DonaldCZEclay Elo: Henry Searle 1345, Matthew William Donald 1450. 105 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Henry Searle vs Matthew William Donald match analysis →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 →clay Elo: Federico Bondioli 1423, Francesco Forti 1353. 70 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Federico Bondioli vs Francesco Forti match analysis →hard Elo: Daniel Milavsky 1400, Darwin Blanch 1534. 133 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Milavsky vs Darwin Blanch match analysis →
Jenson BrooksbyUSAVSTLTimo LegoutFRAhard Elo: Jenson Brooksby 1699, Timo Legout 1524. 175 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jenson Brooksby vs Timo Legout match analysis →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 →
Coleman WongHKGVSKSKasidit SamrejTHAhard Elo: Coleman Wong 1683, Kasidit Samrej 1382. 301 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Coleman Wong vs Kasidit Samrej match analysis →hard Elo: Khumoun Sultanov 1334, Andre Ilagan 1495. 162 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Khumoun Sultanov vs Andre Ilagan match analysis →
Zhizhen ZhangCHNVSYZYi ZhouCHNhard Elo: Zhizhen Zhang 1558, Yi Zhou 1465. 94 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Zhizhen Zhang vs Yi Zhou match analysis →
Jay Dylan Hara FriendJPNVSJMJames MccabeAUShard Elo: Jay Dylan Hara Friend 1545, James Mccabe 1404. 141 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jay Dylan Hara Friend vs James Mccabe match analysis →
Marco TrungellitiARGVSCACarlo Alberto CaniatoITAclay Elo: Marco Trungelliti 1622, Carlo Alberto Caniato 1466. 157 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Marco Trungelliti vs Carlo Alberto Caniato match analysis →
Elmer MollerDENclay Elo: Max Alcala Gurri 1552, Elmer Moller 1539. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Max Alcala Gurri vs Elmer Moller match analysis →
Matej DodigCROVS
Marco CecchinatoITAclay Elo: Matej Dodig 1682, Marco Cecchinato 1537. 145 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matej Dodig vs Marco Cecchinato match analysis →
Alexander RitschardSUIVSRBRaul BrancaccioITAclay Elo: Alexander Ritschard 1557, Raul Brancaccio 1412. 145 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Ritschard vs Raul Brancaccio match analysis →
Thiago MonteiroBRAVSHRHenrique RochaPORclay Elo: Thiago Monteiro 1528, Henrique Rocha 1618. 91 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Thiago Monteiro vs Henrique Rocha match analysis →
Sumit NagalINDVSBHBenjamin HassanLEBclay Elo: Sumit Nagal 1507, Benjamin Hassan 1440. 67 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sumit Nagal vs Benjamin Hassan match analysis →
Andrea PellegrinoITAVS
Francesco PassaroITAclay Elo: Andrea Pellegrino 1569, Francesco Passaro 1634. 65 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Andrea Pellegrino vs Francesco Passaro match analysis →