The Padel Brief

FinalMenNovember 7, 2026

Tapia / Chingotto v Navarro / Sanz

A. TapiaF. Chingotto
Winner
66
F. NavarroJ. Sanz
12
Center Court00:54

Pre-match odds

Tapia / Chingotto

91%

Avg Elo 2054

Navarro / Sanz

9%

Avg Elo 1854

Elo gap 201

Tapia / Chingotto delivered as 91% 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

Tapia / ChingottoNavarro / Sanz

63%
Points won
37%
77%
Points won on serve
51%
49%
Points won on return
23%
78%
1st-serve points won
54%
75%
2nd-serve points won
33%
46%
Points won returning 1st serve
22%
67%
Points won returning 2nd serve
25%
44%
Break points converted
0%
6
Longest run of points
2
8
Service games
7
Stats by set

Set 1

62%
Points won
38%
72%
Points won on serve
50%
50%
Points won on return
28%
73%
1st-serve points won
59%
67%
2nd-serve points won
20%
41%
Points won returning 1st serve
27%
80%
Points won returning 2nd serve
33%
50%
Break points converted
0%
5
Longest run of points
2
4
Service games
3

Set 2

64%
Points won
36%
84%
Points won on serve
52%
48%
Points won on return
16%
83%
1st-serve points won
50%
100%
2nd-serve points won
100%
50%
Points won returning 1st serve
17%
0%
Points won returning 2nd serve
0%
40%
Break points converted
0%
6
Longest run of points
2
4
Service games
4

Point by point

Scores read Tapia / Chingotto first, Navarro / Sanz second.

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

Set 16–1

Breaks 2–0

  1. 1–0

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

    Navarro / Sanz serving

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

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

    Navarro / Sanz serving

    1. 15–15
    2. 15–30
    3. 30–40
    4. 40–40
    5. A–40BP
    6. 40–40
    7. A–40BP
    8. 40–40
    Break
  5. 5–0

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

    Navarro / Sanz serving

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

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

Set 26–2

Breaks 2–0

  1. 1–0

    Navarro / Sanz serving

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

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

    Navarro / Sanz serving

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

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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

    Navarro / Sanz serving

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

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0
    Hold
  7. 5–2

    Navarro / Sanz serving

    1. 0–15
    2. 0–30
    3. 15–40
    Hold
  8. 6–2

    Tapia / Chingotto serving

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