Frank Dancevic vs Tomislav Ternar, Szeged 2016, Round of 16

FUTURES · Round of 16 · Clay · Thu 28 Apr

Final

Frank Dancevic

LostRank #406

Ternar won in 2 sets · 1h 41m

0–2

Set 15–7

Set 21–6

Tomislav Ternar

WinnerRank #1150

Venue

Gellert Leisure Centre

Szeged, HUN· Clay

Court speed

What is court speed?

How much the court helps the server, judged from aces and serve points won and adjusted for who played. 100 is the average ATP tournament court that season.

Very slow< 92Monte Carlo, Rome
Slow92–97Roland Garros, Indian Wells
Average97–103US Open, Dubai
Fast103–108Wimbledon, Shanghai
Very fast108+Basel

Challenger and ITF courts usually read lower: partly the venues, partly the balls and conditions at those levels.

How court speed works

Know how fast this court plays before the first serve

See it with Pro

Wind

—

No reading

Humidity

—

No reading

Temperature

—

No reading

Altitude

80 m

Low

Match stats

1h 41m

1Aces0

2Double faults1

33Service points won36

9Service games played10

2Service games won6

10Return games played9

6/1346%Break points saved50%4/8

4/850%Break points converted54%7/13

Head to head

0Dancevic

1Ternar

1 meeting

SzegedRound of 16 · 28 Apr 2016ClayThis match
Tomislav Ternar
Sets won: 2Set 1: 7Set 2: 6
Frank Dancevic
Sets won: 0Set 1: 5Set 2: 1

Match research

Pro

Everything that shapes this match: each player’s run-in and travel, records side by side, and results against similar opponents and in similar conditions. Better information, better-informed decisions.

Run-inEvery match in the last 28 days, rest days and travel between venues.
Tale of the tapeRecords and serve numbers side by side, filtered by period and surface.
Record by opponent rankingHow each player does against the top 10, top 50 or any ranking range.
Similar conditionsResults in comparable heat, humidity, wind and altitude before scheduled matches.

Get the edge with Pro

Frank Dancevic vs Tomislav Ternar, Szeged 2016, Round of 16

Final score

Venue and conditions

Match stats

Head to head

Match research