The Padel Brief

Group stageMenNovember 2, 2026

Chingotto / Stupaczuk v Melisi / Bechard

F. ChingottoF. Stupaczuk
Winner
66
A. MelisiD. Bechard
11
Court 500:35

Pre-match odds

Chingotto / Stupaczuk

99%

Avg Elo 1947

Melisi / Bechard

1%

Avg Elo 1493

Elo gap 454

Chingotto / Stupaczuk delivered as 99% favourites.

How the odds work

Each pair's strength is the average of its two players' Elo ratings. A 100-point gap makes the stronger pair a 76% favourite; 200 points, 91%. The model is calibrated on 7,500+ pro matches: when it says 70%, the favourite wins about 70% of the time.

These are the odds going into the match day, on the Elo each player carried in, so the result does not leak into them.

Elo ratings: Padel API

Match stats

Chingotto / StupaczukMelisi / Bechard

69%
Points won
31%
82%
Points won on serve
42%
58%
Points won on return
18%
82%
1st-serve points won
42%
0%
2nd-serve points won
0%
58%
Points won returning 1st serve
18%
0%
Points won returning 2nd serve
0%
71%
Break points converted
0%
10
Longest run of points
4
7
Service games
7
Stats by set

Set 1

69%
Points won
31%
86%
Points won on serve
40%
60%
Points won on return
14%
86%
1st-serve points won
40%
0%
2nd-serve points won
0%
60%
Points won returning 1st serve
14%
0%
Points won returning 2nd serve
0%
60%
Break points converted
0%
6
Longest run of points
3
3
Service games
4

Set 2

69%
Points won
31%
80%
Points won on serve
47%
53%
Points won on return
20%
80%
1st-serve points won
47%
0%
2nd-serve points won
0%
53%
Points won returning 1st serve
20%
0%
Points won returning 2nd serve
0%
100%
Break points converted
0%
10
Longest run of points
4
4
Service games
3

Point by point

Scores read Chingotto / Stupaczuk first, Melisi / Bechard second.

52 points shown — the point that wins each game is never published.

Set 16–1

Breaks 3–0

  1. 0–1

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 15–15
    2. 30–15
    3. 30–30
    4. 30–40
    Hold
  2. 1–1

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    Hold
  3. 2–1

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 0–30
    3. 15–30
    4. 15–40
    5. 30–40
    6. 40–40
    7. A–40BP
    Break
  4. 3–1

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 15–15
    3. 30–15
    4. 30–30
    5. 40–30
    Hold
  5. 4–1

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0BP
    4. 40–15BP
    Break
  6. 5–1

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0
    Hold
  7. 6–1

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 15–15
    3. 30–15
    4. 40–15BP
    Break

Set 26–1

Breaks 2–0

  1. 1–0

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 30–15
    4. 40–30
    Hold
  2. 2–0

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 0–30
    3. 15–30
    4. 30–30
    5. 40–30BP
    Break
  3. 3–0

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0
    Hold
  4. 4–0

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 15–0
    Break
  5. 5–0

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 15–30
    3. 30–30
    4. 40–30
    Hold
  6. 5–1

    Melisi / Bechard serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 0–30
    3. 0–40
    Hold
  7. 6–1

    Chingotto / Stupaczuk serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0
    Hold

The point that wins a game is never published by the source feed, so the winner of each game is derived from the next game's score. Where the feed had a gap, no winner is claimed.