- A knife-edge final, and a second set decided by nerve
- Two Belgians in the spotlight: Deloyer steady, Lambrechts struggling
- Maigret up and down… but the accelerator that makes the difference
- Sichez, the match he needed (or almost)
- What the live stats say: aggression pays off, despite the misses
- The road to the final: a deep P1000, quickly shifting landmarks
- What it says about Belgian padel: presence, but two realities
- Key takeaways
A knife-edge final, and a second set decided by nerve
The P1000 Men final in Reims, played at No AD Padel Club, delivered: high tempo, very tactical sequences, and a finish decided on details. On the scoreboard, a straight-sets win 6/4 7/6 for Adrien Maigret and Maxime Deloyer, with a tie-break that captured everything tense about this final.
On the livestream, the atmosphere followed: around 250 viewers, with the constant feeling of a “momentum swing,” especially when Sichez/Lambrechts managed to re-establish their patterns… before running into a fresh acceleration from the other side.
Two Belgians in the spotlight: Deloyer steady, Lambrechts struggling
One of the key angles of this final: two Belgian players on opposite sides of the net, moving in very different directions. Maxime Deloyer produced a slightly positive performance, in the best sense of the phrase: little show, lots of “clean” balls, and a reassuring presence when rallies stretched. His live numbers (13 winners to 11 unforced errors) tell the story of control: he didn’t do everything, but he often did the right thing.
On the other side, Nathan Lambrechts never really managed to climb back into this final. The gap is stark in the stats: 7 winners for 25 unforced errors. When the match tightened, he looked more reactive than proactive, stuck between two options: play safe and absorb, or force it and hand out free points.
In a final, that kind of imbalance eventually weighs heavy: Maigret and Deloyer were sharp enough to keep probing the “profitable” zones, make the ball come back, and punish as soon as it sat up.
Maigret up and down… but the accelerator that makes the difference
Adrien Maigret’s match reads like an ECG: clear dominant phases, a few messier stretches (especially late on), and through it all… the ability to light the place up. The live feed credits him with 25 winners but also 26 unforced errors: yes, he gave some away. But he took even more.
That “profile” fits the set 2 storyline: when tension rises, there are those who try not to lose… and those who accept missing to win. Maigret often chose the second. And in padel, in a tight final, initiative can be worth more than cleanliness.
Sichez, the match he needed (or almost)
The most frustrating part for the losing side is that Romain Sichez played a very strong match. The live numbers support it: 18 winners for only 8 unforced errors. By eye, he set the tempo, varied well, reset when needed, and above all held the diagonal with real clarity.
But you win a final as a pair. When one player is constantly under pressure and can’t flip the dynamic, the margin shrinks: it becomes harder to finish points on the “strong” side, and the opponents can build on repetition.
What the live stats say: aggression pays off, despite the misses
The overall stats shown during the final sum it up well: Maigret/Deloyer finish with 38 winners versus 25 for Sichez/Lambrechts. Unforced errors are relatively close (32 vs 29). In other words: the gap came more from the ability to produce points than from sheer tidiness.
Another interesting angle: Sichez/Lambrechts earned more break points (8 vs 6) but converted fewer (3 vs 4). A small difference, but typical of tight matches: the pair that “clicks” on two or three key points often takes it, even if the other side had more chances.
Finally, a telling detail about the overall level: the match featured only 2 double faults in total, a sign of high commitment… and fairly well-managed serving.
The road to the final: a deep P1000, quickly shifting landmarks
This P1000 “by Alpine” brought together a strong field, with plenty of dangerous pairs from the early rounds. In that context, the final between Maigret/Deloyer and Sichez/Lambrechts rewarded two teams able to sustain the pace over time: one through experience and impact, the other through cohesion and volume.
Worth noting: the depth of the draw also created more open scenarios than expected. When favourites fall along the way, the pressure changes hands, and the pairs who manage the “hot moments” best often go further than those who look best only “on paper.”
What it says about Belgian padel: presence, but two realities
For Belgium, this final carries a particular flavour: two representatives at the top end of a major tournament in France is no small thing. And Deloyer confirms his upward trajectory, already visible in recent months on the Belgian circuit (to revisit here: images from the Belgian Padel Tour).
But it also underlines a simple truth: at a very high level, the difference is often the ability to get through a final without a “dip.” Deloyer did it. Lambrechts, this time, couldn’t find the solution.
Key takeaways
- Maigret/Deloyer win in straight sets, with set 2 decided in a tie-break.
- Deloyer brought stability and continuity; Lambrechts faced constant pressure.
- Sichez played a very strong match, but the pair didn’t convert its best moments.
- The live stats show a clear gap in winners the key to the result.
