Denis ShapovalovCANhard Elo: Remy Bertola 1450, Denis Shapovalov 1808. 359 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Remy Bertola vs Denis Shapovalov match analysis →An independent daily overview of 96 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.
Denis ShapovalovCANhard Elo: Remy Bertola 1450, Denis Shapovalov 1808. 359 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Remy Bertola vs Denis Shapovalov match analysis →
Taylor FritzUSAVS
Rinky HijikataAUShard Elo: Taylor Fritz 1868, Rinky Hijikata 1672. 196 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Taylor Fritz vs Rinky Hijikata match analysis →
Hubert HurkaczPOLVS
Zizou BergsBELhard Elo: Hubert Hurkacz 1842, Zizou Bergs 1759. 83 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hubert Hurkacz vs Zizou Bergs match analysis →
Jerome KymSUIVS
Arthur RinderknechFRAhard Elo: Jerome Kym 1632, Arthur Rinderknech 1734. 101 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jerome Kym vs Arthur Rinderknech match analysis →
Hubert HurkaczPOLVS
Arthur FilsFRAhard Elo: Hubert Hurkacz 1842, Arthur Fils 1947. 105 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hubert Hurkacz vs Arthur Fils match analysis →
Yannick HanfmannGERVS
Jan Lennard StruffGERhard Elo: Yannick Hanfmann 1711, Jan Lennard Struff 1700. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Yannick Hanfmann vs Jan Lennard Struff match analysis →
Ben SheltonUSAVS
Aleksandar KovacevicUSAhard Elo: Ben Shelton 1944, Aleksandar Kovacevic 1614. 331 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Ben Shelton vs Aleksandar Kovacevic match analysis →
Alex MichelsenUSAVS
Botic Van De ZandschulpNEDhard Elo: Alex Michelsen 1838, Botic Van De Zandschulp 1790. 48 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alex Michelsen vs Botic Van De Zandschulp match analysis →
Alejandro Davidovich FokinaESPVS
Zizou BergsBELhard Elo: Alejandro Davidovich Fokina 1930, Zizou Bergs 1759. 172 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alejandro Davidovich Fokina vs Zizou Bergs match analysis →
Giovanni Mpetshi PerricardFRAVS
Arthur FilsFRAhard Elo: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 1549, Arthur Fils 1947. 398 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard vs Arthur Fils match analysis →
Taylor FritzUSAVS
Stefanos TsitsipasGREhard Elo: Taylor Fritz 1868, Stefanos Tsitsipas 1851. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Taylor Fritz vs Stefanos Tsitsipas match analysis →
Hubert HurkaczPOLVS
Holger RuneDENhard Elo: Hubert Hurkacz 1842, Holger Rune 1725. 117 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hubert Hurkacz vs Holger Rune match analysis →
Alejandro TabiloCHIVS
Rafael JodarESPhard Elo: Alejandro Tabilo 1745, Rafael Jodar 1948. 204 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alejandro Tabilo vs Rafael Jodar match analysis →
Novak DjokovicSRBVS
Ugo HumbertFRAhard Elo: Novak Djokovic 2015, Ugo Humbert 1783. 233 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Novak Djokovic vs Ugo Humbert match analysis →
Jiri LeheckaCZEhard Elo: Stan Wawrinka 1640, Jiri Lehecka 1910. 270 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stan Wawrinka vs Jiri Lehecka match analysis →
Nuno BorgesPORVS
Casper RuudNORhard Elo: Nuno Borges 1766, Casper Ruud 1875. 109 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nuno Borges vs Casper Ruud match analysis →
Alexander ZverevGERVSMLMartin LandaluceESPhard Elo: Alexander Zverev 2048, Martin Landaluce 1575. 473 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alexander Zverev vs Martin Landaluce match analysis →
Ignacio BusePERhard Elo: Adrian Mannarino 1673, Ignacio Buse 1691. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Adrian Mannarino vs Ignacio Buse match analysis →
Jakub MensikCZEVSAMAdrian MannarinoFRAhard Elo: Jakub Mensik 1863, Adrian Mannarino 1673. 190 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jakub Mensik vs Adrian Mannarino match analysis →
Cameron NorrieGBRVS
Francisco CerundoloARGhard Elo: Cameron Norrie 1766, Francisco Cerundolo 1838. 72 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Cameron Norrie vs Francisco Cerundolo match analysis →
Learner TienUSAVS
Alex De MinaurAUShard Elo: Learner Tien 1874, Alex De Minaur 1946. 72 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Learner Tien vs Alex De Minaur match analysis →
Lorenzo MusettiITAVS
Frances TiafoeUSAhard Elo: Lorenzo Musetti 1837, Frances Tiafoe 1902. 64 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Lorenzo Musetti vs Frances Tiafoe match analysis →
Daniel Merida AguilarESPVS
Daniil MedvedevRUShard Elo: Daniel Merida Aguilar 1806, Daniil Medvedev 1969. 164 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Merida Aguilar vs Daniil Medvedev match analysis →
Flavio CobolliITAVS
Grigor DimitrovBULhard Elo: Flavio Cobolli 1802, Grigor Dimitrov 1710. 92 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Flavio Cobolli vs Grigor Dimitrov match analysis →
Tommy PaulUSAVS
Andrey RublevRUShard Elo: Tommy Paul 1886, Andrey Rublev 1816. 70 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tommy Paul vs Andrey Rublev match analysis →
Karen KhachanovRUSVS
Carlos AlcarazESPhard Elo: Karen Khachanov 1816, Carlos Alcaraz 2086. 270 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Karen Khachanov vs Carlos Alcaraz match analysis →
Jurij RodionovAUTVS
Nikoloz BasilashviliGEOhard Elo: Jurij Rodionov 1586, Nikoloz Basilashvili 1667. 81 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jurij Rodionov vs Nikoloz Basilashvili match analysis →
Nicolai Budkov KjaerNORhard Elo: Michele Ribecai 1424, Nicolai Budkov Kjaer 1560. 136 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Michele Ribecai vs Nicolai Budkov Kjaer match analysis →hard Elo: Matisse Bobichon 1467, Michael Geerts 1331. 136 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matisse Bobichon vs Michael Geerts match analysis →hard Elo: Martin Damm 1636, Sascha Gueymard Wayenburg 1563. 73 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Martin Damm vs Sascha Gueymard Wayenburg match analysis →hard Elo: Zsombor Piros 1661, Laslo Djere 1636. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Zsombor Piros vs Laslo Djere match analysis →hard Elo: Tom Paris 1338, Borna Gojo 1619. 281 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tom Paris vs Borna Gojo match analysis →hard Elo: Matisse Bobichon 1467, Otto Virtanen 1589. 123 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Matisse Bobichon vs Otto Virtanen match analysis →
Federico CinaITAVS
Nicolai Budkov KjaerNORhard Elo: Federico Cina 1575, Nicolai Budkov Kjaer 1560. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Federico Cina vs Nicolai Budkov Kjaer match analysis →
Stefano TravagliaITAVSPHPierre Hugues HerbertFRAhard Elo: Stefano Travaglia 1507, Pierre Hugues Herbert 1568. 61 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stefano Travaglia vs Pierre Hugues Herbert match analysis →
Dino PrizmicCROhard Elo: Borna Gojo 1619, Dino Prizmic 1691. 72 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Borna Gojo vs Dino Prizmic match analysis →hard Elo: Hugo Gaston 1636, Daniil Glinka 1547. 89 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Hugo Gaston vs Daniil Glinka match analysis →
Ugo BlanchetFRAhard Elo: Felix Balshaw 1577, Ugo Blanchet 1482. 95 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Felix Balshaw vs Ugo Blanchet match analysis →
Hugo GrenierFRAVSMKMoise KouameFRAhard Elo: Hugo Grenier 1469, Moise Kouame 1476. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Hugo Grenier vs Moise Kouame match analysis →hard Elo: Francesco Maestrelli 1453, Gabriel Diallo 1658. 205 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Francesco Maestrelli vs Gabriel Diallo match analysis →
Toby SamuelGBRhard Elo: Inaki Montes De La Torre 1574, Toby Samuel 1704. 131 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Inaki Montes De La Torre vs Toby Samuel match analysis →
Clement TaburFRAVSFRFilippo RomanoITAhard Elo: Clement Tabur 1542, Filippo Romano 1472. 70 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Clement Tabur vs Filippo Romano match analysis →hard Elo: Moez Echargui 1456, Francesco Maestrelli 1453. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Moez Echargui vs Francesco Maestrelli match analysis →
Gonzalo BuenoPERVSABAlex BarrenaARGclay Elo: Gonzalo Bueno 1469, Alex Barrena 1486. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Gonzalo Bueno vs Alex Barrena match analysis →clay Elo: Nick Hardt 1403, Juan Manuel La Serna 1517. 113 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Nick Hardt vs Juan Manuel La Serna match analysis →
Lautaro MidonARGclay Elo: Gonzalo Villanueva 1340, Lautaro Midon 1543. 203 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Gonzalo Villanueva vs Lautaro Midon match analysis →
Camilo Ugo CarabelliARGVSFCFederico CoriaARGclay Elo: Camilo Ugo Carabelli 1696, Federico Coria 1457. 239 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Camilo Ugo Carabelli vs Federico Coria match analysis →
Rodrigo Pacheco MendezMEXclay Elo: Juan Pablo Varillas 1506, Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez 1436. 70 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Juan Pablo Varillas vs Rodrigo Pacheco Mendez match analysis →clay Elo: Carlos Maria Zarate 1187, Alan Magadan 1356. 169 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Carlos Maria Zarate vs Alan Magadan match analysis →
Juan Carlos Prado AngeloBOLclay Elo: Pedro Boscardin Dias 1427, Juan Carlos Prado Angelo 1519. 92 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Pedro Boscardin Dias vs Juan Carlos Prado Angelo match analysis →
Tomas Barrios VeraCHIVSJEJuan EstevezARGclay Elo: Tomas Barrios Vera 1525, Juan Estevez 1200. 325 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tomas Barrios Vera vs Juan Estevez match analysis →clay Elo: Joaquin Aguilar Cardozo 1384, Miguel Tobon 1351. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Joaquin Aguilar Cardozo vs Miguel Tobon match analysis →clay Elo: Franco Roncadelli 1427, Valerio Aboian 1444. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Franco Roncadelli vs Valerio Aboian match analysis →
Nicolas JarryCHIVS
Hugo DellienBOLclay Elo: Nicolas Jarry 1634, Hugo Dellien 1601. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Nicolas Jarry vs Hugo Dellien match analysis →clay Elo: Alvaro Guillen Meza 1314, Juan Alejandro Hernandez Serrano 1210. 104 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alvaro Guillen Meza vs Juan Alejandro Hernandez Serrano match analysis →
Diego Dedura PalomeroGERVSGAGenaro Alberto OlivieriARGclay Elo: Diego Dedura Palomero 1517, Genaro Alberto Olivieri 1440. 77 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Diego Dedura Palomero vs Genaro Alberto Olivieri match analysis →
Daniel Elahi GalanCOLVSLJLorenzo Joaquin RodriguezARGclay Elo: Daniel Elahi Galan 1446, Lorenzo Joaquin Rodriguez 1172. 274 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Elahi Galan vs Lorenzo Joaquin Rodriguez match analysis →clay Elo: Alan Magadan 1356, Tristan Mccormick 1125. 232 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Alan Magadan vs Tristan Mccormick match analysis →hard Elo: Jake Delaney 1142, Alexandr Binda 1283. 141 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jake Delaney vs Alexandr Binda match analysis →hard Elo: Tristan Schoolkate 1572, Masamichi Imamura 1232. 340 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Tristan Schoolkate vs Masamichi Imamura match analysis →
Liam BroadyGBRhard Elo: Sergey Fomin 1256, Liam Broady 1465. 209 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sergey Fomin vs Liam Broady match analysis →hard Elo: Charles Broom 1465, Akira Santillan 1362. 103 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Charles Broom vs Akira Santillan match analysis →hard Elo: Kaichi Uchida 1257, Harold Mayot 1602. 345 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Kaichi Uchida vs Harold Mayot match analysis →hard Elo: James Mccabe 1413, Hiroki Moriya 1302. 111 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
James Mccabe vs Hiroki Moriya match analysis →
Yu Hsiou HsuTPEhard Elo: Yuta Shimizu 1390, Yu Hsiou Hsu 1398. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Yuta Shimizu vs Yu Hsiou Hsu match analysis →hard Elo: Hiroki Moriya 1302, Mert Alkaya 1325. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Hiroki Moriya vs Mert Alkaya match analysis →hard Elo: Fajing Sun 1424, Hayato Matsuoka 1406. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Fajing Sun vs Hayato Matsuoka match analysis →hard Elo: Petr Bar Biryukov 1371, Semen Pankin 1259. 111 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Petr Bar Biryukov vs Semen Pankin match analysis →
Yu Hsiou HsuTPEVSKSKeegan SmithUSAhard Elo: Yu Hsiou Hsu 1398, Keegan Smith 1422. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Yu Hsiou Hsu vs Keegan Smith match analysis →hard Elo: Naoya Honda 1236, Filip Peliwo 1237. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Naoya Honda vs Filip Peliwo match analysis →
Elias YmerSWEVSYZYi ZhouCHNhard Elo: Elias Ymer 1456, Yi Zhou 1506. 50 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Elias Ymer vs Yi Zhou match analysis →
August HolmgrenDENVS
Jay Dylan Hara FriendJPNhard Elo: August Holmgren 1451, Jay Dylan Hara Friend 1560. 109 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
August Holmgren vs Jay Dylan Hara Friend match analysis →
Stefanos SakellaridisGREVS
Timofey SkatovKAZhard Elo: Stefanos Sakellaridis 1577, Timofey Skatov 1476. 100 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stefanos Sakellaridis vs Timofey Skatov match analysis →
Terence AtmaneFRAVS
Soon Woo KwonKORhard Elo: Terence Atmane 1705, Soon Woo Kwon 1694. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Terence Atmane vs Soon Woo Kwon match analysis →
Terence AtmaneFRAVSKMKoki MatsudaJPNhard Elo: Terence Atmane 1705, Koki Matsuda 1180. 525 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Terence Atmane vs Koki Matsuda match analysis →hard Elo: Christian Langmo 1229, Aleksandar Vukic 1598. 369 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Christian Langmo vs Aleksandar Vukic match analysis →
Coleman WongHKGhard Elo: Beibit Zhukayev 1356, Coleman Wong 1686. 330 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Beibit Zhukayev vs Coleman Wong match analysis →
Sho ShimabukuroJPNVSJKJan KumstatCZEhard Elo: Sho Shimabukuro 1562, Jan Kumstat 1490. 72 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sho Shimabukuro vs Jan Kumstat match analysis →
Billy HarrisGBRVSAVAleksandar VukicAUShard Elo: Billy Harris 1441, Aleksandar Vukic 1598. 157 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Billy Harris vs Aleksandar Vukic match analysis →hard Elo: Lloyd Harris 1702, Omar Jasika 1313. 389 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Lloyd Harris vs Omar Jasika match analysis →
Alexandre MullerFRAhard Elo: Omar Jasika 1313, Alexandre Muller 1617. 303 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Omar Jasika vs Alexandre Muller match analysis →
Taro DanielJPNVSAIAndre IlaganUSAhard Elo: Taro Daniel 1511, Andre Ilagan 1497. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Taro Daniel vs Andre Ilagan match analysis →
Alexis GalarneauCANVSMRMees RottgeringNEDhard Elo: Alexis Galarneau 1531, Mees Rottgering 1563. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Alexis Galarneau vs Mees Rottgering match analysis →hard Elo: Mitchell Krueger 1440, Andres Andrade 1548. 109 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Mitchell Krueger vs Andres Andrade match analysis →
Dylan DietrichSUIVS
Colton SmithUSAhard Elo: Dylan Dietrich 1656, Colton Smith 1470. 187 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Dylan Dietrich vs Colton Smith match analysis →hard Elo: J J Wolf 1551, Abedallah Shelbayh 1518. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
J J Wolf vs Abedallah Shelbayh match analysis →
Hynek BartonCZEhard Elo: Aidan Mayo 1436, Hynek Barton 1489. 54 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Aidan Mayo vs Hynek Barton match analysis →hard Elo: Sebastian Gorzny 1425, Darwin Blanch 1577. 151 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Sebastian Gorzny vs Darwin Blanch match analysis →
Max Hans RehbergGERVSSKStefan KozlovUSAhard Elo: Max Hans Rehberg 1460, Stefan Kozlov 1372. 88 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Max Hans Rehberg vs Stefan Kozlov match analysis →
Maks KasnikowskiPOLhard Elo: Aidan Mayo 1436, Maks Kasnikowski 1469. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Aidan Mayo vs Maks Kasnikowski match analysis →hard Elo: J J Wolf 1551, Daniel Milavsky 1406. 145 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
J J Wolf vs Daniel Milavsky match analysis →
Max Hans RehbergGERhard Elo: Braden Shick 1428, Max Hans Rehberg 1460. The narrow rating gap points to a finely balanced matchup.
Braden Shick vs Max Hans Rehberg match analysis →hard Elo: Stefan Kozlov 1372, Murphy Cassone 1467. 95 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Stefan Kozlov vs Murphy Cassone match analysis →
Jenson BrooksbyUSAVS
Dylan DietrichSUIhard Elo: Jenson Brooksby 1734, Dylan Dietrich 1656. 78 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Jenson Brooksby vs Dylan Dietrich match analysis →hard Elo: Mees Rottgering 1563, Kaylan Bigun 1252. 311 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Mees Rottgering vs Kaylan Bigun match analysis →
Harry WendelkenGBRhard Elo: Daniel Milavsky 1406, Harry Wendelken 1512. 106 points separate the players, making surface adaptation a central question.
Daniel Milavsky vs Harry Wendelken match analysis →