Pune: It was not a ATP World Tour debut to remember for Sumit Nagal who went down 6-3, 6-3 to Belarus’s Ilya Ivashka in his first match of the main draw at the Tata Open Maharashtra on Tuesday.

The 20-year-old had made it to the main draw of the Pune tournament after a hard-fought win over seasoned Adrian Menendez-Maceiras and fellow Indian Divij Sharan in the qualifiers, but couldn’t quite sustain the momentum against the 230th ranked fellow qualifier.

In a match that lasted just about 80 minutes, Nagal’s usually reliable forehand had too many errors even as his serve was repeatedly under attack. Incidentally, the Indian won more points on his second serve (50%) than on his first (49%).

Advertisement

The 6’5 tall Ivashka used his height advantage over the 5’10 Indian as he broke early in the fourth game of the first set. Nagal took his time to settle down as his frequent unforced errors gave Ivashka all the space he needed to dominate, facing no break point in the first set.

Nagal was broken in the first game of the second set to put even more pressure on him. Egged on by the crowd and with mentor Mahesh Bhupathi on the sidelines, the 20-year-old was a little more aggressive in the second set, going for his shots where he could, even though several went long.

Things came to the tipping point in the third game where he faced a break point, about to go two breaks down. In a lengthy game, he managed to save the break point, only for the point to be replayed as called by the umpire. A visibly frustrated Nagal lost his cool at the chair but had to concede. He went on to save two more break points and hold in the gritty game. But he was broken again soon after.

Nagal’s best moment came when Ivashka was serving for the match. Nagal got his first break point opportunities of the match and managed to convert one. But even that was not to be a turning point as he squandered the match on serve in the next game. In a game littered with errors and serving trouble, it was rather fitting that his tournament ended with a double fault.