The Padel Brief

Round of 64MenNovember 10, 2026

Naranjo / Zapata v Garcia / Lopez

A. NaranjoT. Zapata
Winner
66
A. GarciaJ. Lopez
12
Center Court00:53

Pre-match odds

Naranjo / Zapata

81%

Avg Elo 1593

Garcia / Lopez

19%

Avg Elo 1469

Elo gap 124

Naranjo / Zapata delivered as 81% 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

Naranjo / ZapataGarcia / Lopez

64%
Points won
36%
76%
Points won on serve
49%
51%
Points won on return
24%
75%
1st-serve points won
51%
83%
2nd-serve points won
0%
49%
Points won returning 1st serve
25%
100%
Points won returning 2nd serve
17%
80%
Break points converted
0%
7
Longest run of points
4
8
Service games
7
Stats by set

Set 1

64%
Points won
36%
70%
Points won on serve
47%
53%
Points won on return
30%
70%
1st-serve points won
47%
75%
2nd-serve points won
0%
53%
Points won returning 1st serve
30%
0%
Points won returning 2nd serve
25%
100%
Break points converted
0%
5
Longest run of points
4
4
Service games
3

Set 2

63%
Points won
37%
84%
Points won on serve
50%
50%
Points won on return
16%
82%
1st-serve points won
54%
100%
2nd-serve points won
0%
46%
Points won returning 1st serve
18%
100%
Points won returning 2nd serve
0%
67%
Break points converted
0%
7
Longest run of points
4
4
Service games
4

Point by point

Scores read Naranjo / Zapata first, Garcia / Lopez second.

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

Set 16–1

Breaks 2–0

  1. 1–0

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

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

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

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

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 30–15
    4. 30–30
    5. 40–30
    6. 40–40
    7. 40–ABP
    8. 40–40
    9. A–40
    Hold
  6. 5–1

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

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

Set 26–2

Breaks 2–0

  1. 1–0

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

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

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

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

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    3. 40–0
    4. 40–15
    Hold
  7. 5–2

    Garcia / Lopez serving

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

    Naranjo / Zapata serving

    1. 15–0
    2. 30–0
    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.