ATP Challenger Tour · Round of 32 · Tampere
Final score & match stats
Playing styles and historical archetype record
Sels
🎯 Baseliner
Gakhov
🪃 Counterpuncher
Matchup analysis
The 🎯 Baseliner archetype wins about 53% vs 🪃 Counterpuncher across 1,829 matches in our dataset. That is a small stylistic lean for Jelle Sels here.
Baseliner players often use precise groundstrokes and court control to pressure the counterpuncher's elite bp conversion. On Clay, that can swing with conditions.
Hypothetical if you put 1u on each player to win every one of their matches · Last 90 days
| Metric | Sels | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| W-L | 3–5 | 2–2 |
| Avg odds | 2.24 | 2.01 |
| ROI % | -44.4% | -6.5% |
| Units P/L | -3.55u | -0.26u |
Small sample: ROI stabilizes with more matches; fewer than 10 in the window is noisy.
Prior meetings and scores · 1 career meeting
1
Sels
0
Gakhov
Results vs. opponents both players faced · Last 12 months
Gakhov has a higher win rate against shared opponents (80% vs Sels's 40%).
| Opponent | Sels | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| Francesco Forti | L 06 67 | W 76 46 76 |
| Gabriele Piraino | L 46 26 | W 26 62 76 |
| Petr Brunclik | W 67 63 76 | W 64 76 |
| Gianluca Cadenasso | L 46 06 | L 16 61 67 |
| Eric Vanshelboim | W 63 75 | W 62 61 |
Serve and return comparison · Last 90 days
| Stat | Sels | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| Serve | ||
| 1st Serve In % | 61.7% | 57.9% |
| 1st Serve Pts Won % | 60% | 54.2% |
| 2nd Serve Pts Won % | 48.5% | 48.7% |
| Aces / Match | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| Double Faults / Match | 2.3 | 4.8 |
| Break Points Saved % | 55.5% | 46.9% |
| Return | ||
| 1st Return Pts Won % | 30.3% | 31.2% |
| 2nd Return Pts Won % | 50% | 56.7% |
| BP Converted % | 42% | 57.3% |
| Rally | ||
| Winners / Match | 0 | 0 |
| Unforced Errors / Match | 0 | 0 |
| Net Pts Won % | 0% | 0% |
| Total Pts Won % | 46.6% | 46.8% |
| Surface (Clay) | ||
| Clay Win % | 40% | 50% |
Last five matches per player
Dimitar Kuzmanov
PLOVDIV CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Jun 23
Francesco Forti
Internazionali di Tennis Città di Perugia | G.I.MA. Tennis Cup · Round of 32
Jun 2
Lorenzo Carboni
Internazionali di Tennis Città di Perugia | G.I.MA. Tennis Cup · 2nd Round Qualifying
Jun 1
Edoardo Betti
Internazionali di Tennis Città di Perugia | G.I.MA. Tennis Cup · 1st Round Qualifying
May 31
Tommaso Compagnucci
Internazionali Di Tennis - Citta'Di Vicenza · 2nd Round Qualifying
May 25
Gijs Brouwer
Shymkent Challenger 2 · Round of 32
Apr 29
Zangar Nurlanuly
Shymkent Challenger 1 · Round of 32
Apr 21
Pol Martin Tiffon
Open Menorca · Round of 16
Apr 3
Norbert Gombos
Open Menorca · Round of 32
Apr 1
Christoph Negritu
VII CHALLENGER COSTA CALIDA REGION DE MURCIA · Round of 32
Mar 9
Match summary
Ivan Gakhov and Jelle Sels will meet in the Round of 16 of the Shymkent Challenger 1 on April 22, 2026. The clay-court tournament brings together Gakhov, ranked 263rd, and Sels, ranked 447th, in what will be their second career meeting. This outdoor clay contest takes place after minimal time off for both players, with Gakhov returning just one day after his last match and Sels two days out.
The pair have met once before, with Sels holding a 1-0 record in their head-to-head. That single previous encounter shapes the narrative of this rematch, though both players arrive in inconsistent form on the surface. Against common opponent Norbert Gombos, Gakhov secured a win while Sels suffered a loss, providing one data point in their broader competitive context.
On clay over recent weeks, Ivan Gakhov has compiled a 9-11 record at 45 percent, while Jelle Sels sits at 8-12 and 40 percent. In his last five matches, Gakhov has won two, though his last ten show a 40 percent rate. Sels has won just one of his last five matches but maintains a 40 percent rate over ten contests. Both players are riding single-match winning streaks into this Round of 16 encounter.
Gakhov operates as an aggressive baseline competitor who presses the point, while Sels is known for defensive consistency and court coverage. On outdoor clay, Gakhov's attacking approach can generate angles and pace, whereas Sels relies on repositioning and extended rallies. The surface typically rewards both aggression and patience in different phases, setting up a potential stylistic contrast between these two competitors.
Share this match
