Thomas Fancutt vs Dan Dowson, Telavi 2016, Quarterfinal

FUTURES · Quarterfinal · Clay · Fri 5 Aug

Final

Thomas Fancutt

LostRank #685

Dowson won in 3 sets · 3h 3m

1–2

Set 17–6⁶

Set 23–6

Set 34–6

Dan Dowson

WinnerRank #1343

Venue

Telavi Tennis Club

Telavi, GEO· 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

747 m

Moderate

Match stats

3h 3m

1Aces1

3Double faults6

53Service points won71

15Service games played16

9Service games won12

16Return games played15

7/1354%Break points saved69%9/13

4/1331%Break points converted46%6/13

Head to head

0Fancutt

1Dowson

1 meeting

TelaviQuarterfinal · 5 Aug 2016ClayThis match
Dan Dowson
Sets won: 2Set 1: 6⁶Set 2: 6Set 3: 6
Thomas Fancutt
Sets won: 1Set 1: 7⁸Set 2: 3Set 3: 4

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

Thomas Fancutt vs Dan Dowson, Telavi 2016, Quarterfinal

Final score

Venue and conditions

Match stats

Head to head

Match research