Does Galán really dominate the proceedings? Statistical analysis of the Gijón P2 final

The final of Premier Padel Gijon P2 across Tapia / Coello et Galan / Chingotto It was expected to be a top-level duel between the two dominant pairs on the circuit. On the court, the victory of Galan and Chingotto may have seemed clear. But it is above all the detailed statistics of Padel Intelligence which help to understand why this final turned out so badly.

Because behind the score, the numbers tell a more precise story: Alejandro Galán largely dominated the discussions , While Tapia and Coello had a less controlled final than usual. . Between winning points, smash efficiency, individual contribution and key moment management Statistical analysis highlights the true keys to the match.

And one observation immediately stands out: Galán was, by far, the most influential player in this final.

A victory built on overall mastery

In total, Galan / Chingotto have won 81 point , against 69 for Tapia / Coello The margin is far from insignificant in a final of this level. It reflects a fairly clear dominance throughout the match.

Another revealing piece of information: Galan / Chingotto have registered 40 winning points , against 37 for their opponents, while committing fewer unforced errors : 17 unprovoked fouls , against 19 for Tapia / Coello .

This difference may seem small, but at this level, it is decisive. Because the winning pair wasn't just slightly better: they were above all more accurate in important moments , with a padel that is more balanced between taking initiative and safety.

Galán XXL, imperial Chingotto: the n°2s overthrow Tapia / Coello in the final of the Gijón P2

A less effective match than usual for Tapia / Coello

On paper, it's Tapia / Coello They remain capable of turning any match around with a few key moments. But in this final, their performance was more inconsistent than that of their rivals.

They only convert only one break point out of three , While Galan / Chingotto by making them concrete two out of seven The total number of opportunities obtained by the Spanish-Argentine pair shows that they put more pressure on the return leg, even if their conversion rate was not exceptional.

But it is above all in the distribution of individual performances that the match is best understood.

Galán carried the final

With a Pi Player Contribution Index of 28,22 , Alejandro Galán He completely dominated all the other players in this final. He finished far ahead. Coello (17,54) , Chingotto (3,15) and especially Tapia (-4,75) .

This figure confirms what one visually perceives in this type of encounter: Galán had an impact on the match from start to finish. by imposing both his volume of play, his ability to finish points and his presence in the moments when the final became tense.

His individual statistics speak for themselves:

34 winning points , which is the highest total of the four players
14 unprovoked fouls , an acceptable figure considering its offensive output
9 fouls caused obtained
5 assistants (assists) ou actions that directly lead to the partner's winning point )
18 winning smashes out of 22 attempted , which translates to remarkable efficiency in aerial play
KPoints: 2,61 , once again the best total of the final

Galán was therefore both the most decisive player , the sharpest in attack and the most consistent element in building victory.

Chingotto Galán dominates the proceedings: statistical analysis of the Gijón P2 final — CP Premier Padel

Chingotto discreet in scoring, valuable in balance

The counts of Federico Chingotto are much more modest: 6 winning points , 3 unprovoked fouls , 6 fouls caused , 3 assistants , With a Pi Index of 3,15 .

Taken in isolation, these statistics might seem secondary. In reality, they tell a different story. Chingotto didn't have to overact. He primarily served as base of stability by limiting errors, maintaining the exchange and letting Galán take the lead when the point opened up.

His offensive contribution to the smash remains limited with 2/3 But that was clearly not where his mission lay. In this final, Chingotto was primarily the player who allowed his partner to express his full potential, without the pair losing its balance.

This is often the paradox of Chingotto: he doesn't always sign the most brilliant numbers, but he makes the match more readable for his partner and more complicated for the opponent.

Coello lived up to expectations, Tapia suffered more.

In the opposing camp, Arturo Coello is the player who responded best. With 24 winning points , 9 unprovoked fouls , 9 fouls caused , 3 assistants and Pi Index of 17,54 He is the only one who has truly kept up with the pace set by Galán.

His smash efficiency remains high: 12 winning smashes out of 23 attempted However, the sheer number of attempts also shows that he had to work harder to make a difference. Coello produced chances, but without managing to single-handedly turn the tide of the match.

Conversely, Agustín Tapia finishes with unusual figures for a player of his stature: 13 winners , 10 unprovoked fouls , 13 fouls caused , 3 assistants , 8 winning smashes out of 16 , and above all a Pi Index negative of -4,75 .

This is undoubtedly the most striking statistic of the final. Seeing Tapia finish with a negative score illustrates a match where he never truly found his rhythm. His KPoints at -0,51 goes in the same direction: its impact on key points was less than expected.

In other words, Coello existed More Tapia suffered more which unbalanced the number 1 pair.

Coello lived up to expectations, Tapia suffered more. — CP Premier Padel

The match's trajectory confirms the shift.

The graph of Player Contribution Index is particularly interesting. It shows a continuous progression of Gallant which takes up more and more space as the match progresses. Coello It too remains on the rise, but at a significant distance. Chingotto remains relatively stable, with a slight increase at the end of the match, while Wall gradually declines until it ends up clearly in the negative.

This dynamic reading is important: it suggests that the final was not decided by a simple, one-off lapse, but by a gradual takeover de Galan / Chingotto , particularly in the second half of the match.

Why Galán/Chingotto won

This final can be explained by four major factors.

First, slightly superior offensive production , with more winning points and more points won in total.

Then, better discipline , with fewer unforced errors.

Thirdly, A Galán who stands out from the crowd capable of turning the game around with his controlled aggression and his effectiveness at the smash.

Finally a Tapia/Coello pairing less consistent than usual , with a solid Coello but a Tapia struggling to influence the overall match.

The MVP of the match: Alejandro Galán

Based on the statistics, there is little room for debate: Alejandro Galán and the MVP of this final.

He finishes :

first in Player Contribution Index
first in the number of winning points
first in smash efficiency among the large volumes
first in KPoints

Above all, he was the player who set the tone for the final. Where others alternated between highs and lows, Galán applied constant pressure. This consistent impact made him the key player in the title win.

What this final reveals about the balance of power

This victory is a reminder of one essential thing: in the face of Tapia / Coello It's not enough to defend or wait for a lull. You have to be able to take the initiative , keep the pace and stay tactically clean That's exactly what they managed to do. Galan / Chingotto .

And when Gallant plays at this level of domination, with a Chingotto When used reliably, this pair becomes extremely difficult to move.

In this final of the Gijon P2 The statistical verdict is clear: Galan / Chingotto were better collectively, and Gallant was the player who had the most impact on the match.

Franck Binisti

Franck Binisti discovered padel at the Club des Pyramides in 2009 in the Paris region. Since then, padel has been part of his life. You often see him touring France to cover major French padel events.