Match: Danilovic O. vs. Lamens S.
Tournament: France: Rouen WTA, clay (indoor)
Date: 19 Sat Apr 2025
Match Result: Unfortunately, specific score details for this past match are unavailable without access to a real-time tennis results database. However, the analysis below will infer details from potential performance factors.
Bet Analysis: Without knowing the actual odds or result, a common bet pre-match might have been on Over/Under 20.5 games. Given it's clay, longer rallies and more breaks of serve are typical. Thus, Over 20.5 games could have seemed reasonable if the players were closely ranked. Without the final score, it's impossible to say if the pre-match favorite succeeded or if the Over/Under hit. Given it's indoor clay, some players' might enjoy greater speed due to the lower humidity and better grip.
Player Performance Analysis:
Since the match data is unavailable, the below is a *hypothetical* performance snapshot. It is created for illustrative purposes. It shows potential statistics and would need to be replaced with *actual* match data for a real analysis.
| Statistic | Danilovic O. (Hypothetical) | Lamens S. (Hypothetical) |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 2 | 1 |
| Double Faults | 4 | 3 |
| 1st Serve Percentage | 60% | 58% |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 65% | 62% |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 45% | 40% |
| Break Points Saved | 50% | 40% |
| 1st Return Points Won | 38% | 35% |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 55% | 50% |
| Break Points Converted | 40% | 30% |
| Service Points Won | 57% | 53% |
| Return Points Won | 43% | 47% |
| Total Points Won | 50% | 50% |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Games Won | 9 | 7 |
| Service Games Won | 60% | 50% |
| Return Games Won | 30% | 20% |
| Total Games Won | 9 | 7 |
Key Considerations:
Based on the hypothetical data, both players had issues with consistency, as shown by the double faults and 1st serve percentages. The return game likely proved a pivotal factor. Assuming Danilovic O. won the match based on her higher break point conversion rate and service points won rate, her slightly stronger serve and more effective return game may have been the difference-makers. Clay, even indoor, generally rewards patience and the ability to construct points; therefore, a player who could consistently put balls in play and capitalize on opportunities would have had an advantage. Since we're dealing with indoor clay, the pace might be slightly faster than outdoor clay, rewarding players with flatter shots and more aggressive returning styles.