Peter Torebko vs Miljan Zekic, Hammamet 2017, Quarterfinal

FUTURES · Quarterfinal · Clay · Fri 3 Mar

Final

Peter Torebko

LostRank #1478

Zekic won in 2 sets · 2h 17m

0–2

Set 16–7⁶

Set 25–7

Miljan Zekic

WinnerRank #1446

Venue

Hotel Sentido Phenicia

Hammamet, TUN· 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

7 m

Sea level

Match stats

2h 17m

1Aces0

4Double faults3

46Service points won53

12Service games played12

9Service games won10

12Return games played12

4/757%Break points saved67%4/6

2/633%Break points converted43%3/7

Head to head

0Torebko

1Zekic

1 meeting

HammametQuarterfinal · 3 Mar 2017ClayThis match
Miljan Zekic
Sets won: 2Set 1: 7⁸Set 2: 7
Peter Torebko
Sets won: 0Set 1: 6⁶Set 2: 5

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

Peter Torebko vs Miljan Zekic, Hammamet 2017, Quarterfinal

Final score

Venue and conditions

Match stats

Head to head

Match research