Men’s P1000 No AD Padel Club: Deloyer-Maigret win in a tiebreak

A nail-biting final, and a second set that becomes a turning point due to grit

The Men’s P1000 final in Reims, held at the no-ad Padel Club, held serve to expectations: a match with fast tempo, highly tactical exchanges, and a finish decided by the smallest of margins. The scoreboard showed a two-set victory, 6-4, 7-6, for Adrien Maigret and Maxime Deloyer, following a tiebreak that epitomized just how tense this final was.

The atmosphere during the live stream was just as intense: around 250 viewers tuned in, and it felt like a constant “turning point” in the match, especially when Sichez/Lambrechts managed to reestablish their rhythm… only to be met with an acceleration from their opponents.

Two Belgians in the Big Match-Up: Deloyer Performs Solidly, Lambrechts Struggles

This is one of the key aspects of this final: two Belgian players on opposite sides of the net, with contrasting styles. Maxime Deloyer put in a slightly positive performance, in a good way: few flashy shots, plenty of “clean” shots, and a reassuring presence when points dragged on. His live stats (13 winners to 11 direct errors) tell the story of this controlled match: he didn’t do everything, but he often did the right thing.

On the other side, Nathan Lambrechts never really managed to pull off a comeback in this final. The disparity in the stats is stark: 7 winners to 25 direct errors. When the match got tense, he seemed to be reacting rather than taking the initiative, often caught between two options: playing it safe and letting the other team dictate the pace, or forcing the issue and giving away easy points.

In a final, this kind of gap ends up making a big difference: Maigret and Deloyer had the foresight to focus on the “profitable” areas, force their opponents to play the ball again, and then capitalize as soon as the ball rose slightly.

Maigret has his ups and downs… but it’s the accelerator that makes all the difference

Adrien Maigret’s match reads like an electrocardiogram: clear periods of dominance, a few rougher patches (especially toward the end of the match), and in the midst of it all… an ability to set the court on fire. The live broadcast credits him with 25 winning points, but also 26 direct errors: yes, he dished out some. But above all, he took his share.

This “profile” fits the scenario in Set 2: when the tension rises, there are those who try not to lose… and those who are willing to make mistakes in order to win. Maigret often chose the second option. And in padel, in a close final, taking the initiative is sometimes more valuable than playing it safe.

Sichez: The Match We Needed (Or Almost)

The most frustrating thing for the losing side is that Romain Sichez played a great match. The live stats back this up: 18 winning points for just 8 direct errors. To the naked eye, we saw him set the pace, mix up his game, get the rally going when needed, and above all, handle the diagonal with great clarity.

But a final is won by both players. When one of the two players is constantly under pressure and can’t turn the momentum around, the margin narrows: it becomes harder to finish points on the “strong side,” and the opposing pair can capitalize on the repetition.

What the live stats tell us: Aggression pays off, despite the turnovers

The overall statistics displayed during the final recap the situation well: Maigret/Deloyer finished with 38 winning points, compared to 25 for Sichez/Lambrechts. The number of direct errors was fairly close (32 to 29). In other words, the gap was created more by the ability to score points than by clean play alone.

Another interesting statistic: Sichez/Lambrechts earned more break points (8 to 6) but converted fewer (3 to 4). It’s a small difference, but one typical of close matches: the pair that “clicks” on two or three key points often wins the match, even if the other pair had more opportunities.

Finally, a telling detail about the overall quality: there were only two double faults in the entire match, a sign of a high level of commitment… and fairly good control over the serve.

Road to the Final: A Tight P1000 Field, Where the Favorites Were Quickly Upset

This P1000 “by Alpine” tournament featured a strong field, with many formidable pairs emerging right from the early rounds. Against this backdrop, the final between Maigret/Deloyer and Sichez/Lambrechts rewarded two teams capable of maintaining their tempo over the long haul: one through experience and impact, the other through cohesion and the volume of their game.

It’s worth noting that the depth of the draw has also led to more open matchups than expected: when favourites are eliminated early on, the pressure shifts to the other side, and the pairs that handle the “tough moments” best often advance further than those who rely solely on their “paper form.”

What this says about Belgian padel: a presence, but two realities

For Belgium, this final holds special significance: having two representatives at the highest level of a major tournament in France is no small feat. And Deloyer is confirming his upward trajectory, which has already been evident in recent months on the Belgian circuit (read more here: a look back at the Belgian Padel Tour).

But it also highlights a simple truth: at the very highest level, the difference often comes down to the ability to get through a final without “falling behind.” Deloyer did just that. Lambrechts, this time, couldn’t find a way to do it.

To remember

• Maigret/Deloyer won in straight sets, with the second set decided in a tiebreak.
• Deloyer brought stability and continuity, while Lambrechts was under constant pressure.
• Sichez played a very solid match, but the pair failed to capitalize on their hot streaks.
• The live stats show a clear gap in winning points, which was key to the outcome.