Jack Sock vs Ugo Humbert — Indian Wells CH Round of 32

Indian Wells CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
USA
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 March 2020
hard
Ugo Humbert
FRA1
Ugo Humbert
#29ATP
1868ELO
1843Hard ELO
$1.1MYTD
$12MCAREER
28 yrs · 188 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWWLWWW
Sock J.
7-6 6-4
Humbert U.
Sock J.
7762
Humbert U.
6540

Jack Sock defeated Ugo Humbert 7-6 6-4 in the Indian Wells CH round of 32 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Sock J.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Humbert U.

Humbert U.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Sock J.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

Each player's serve crossed against the other's return, converted to expected hold of serve. Recent completed matches, ATP, WTA & Challenger. About

Serve & return on hard

Sock J.Humbert U.
—
Serve
64
—
Return
15

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the hard field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Sock J.Humbert U.
1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
53%
Service points won·Even
65%
66%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Even
63%
65%
Aces / match·Even
6.3
6.8
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.6
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (116 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Sock J.Humbert U.
Clutch Rating·Even
67
70
Break points saved·Even
96
99
Break points won·Slight edge
28
37
Deciding sets·Slight edge
86
78
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
82
91

Performance in the biggest moments — break points, deciding sets and tiebreaks (0–100, higher is better). About

Freshness

Recent load
Sock J.Humbert U.
Freshness·
—
96

Humbert U.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Johnson S.[5]
Sock J.
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Johnson S.[5]
Krueger M.
6-46-4
Sock J.
Nakashima B.
6-756-36-4
Quarter-finals
Johnson S.[5]
Rubin N.
6-36-3
Krueger M.
Barrere G.[9]
6-47-65
Nakashima B.
Giron M.[14]
7-623-66-2
Sock J.
Kudla D.[11]
7-655-76-4
R16
Krueger M.
Korda S.
6-26-1
Barrere G.[9]
Tiafoe F.[8]
4-66-27-64
Nakashima B.
Caruso S.[10]
6-46-3
Kudla D.[11]
Sinner J.[6]
6-36-746-2
Sock J.
Donskoy E.[13]
6-44-67-63
Johnson S.[5]
Daniel T.[12]
7-636-2
Rubin N.
Sarmiento R.
6-36-1
Giron M.[14]
Marcora R.
7-646-1
R32
Rubin N.
Pouille L.[2]
6-47-65
Daniel T.[12]
Mcdonald M.
7-57-66
Johnson S.[5]
Polmans M.
6-13-66-2
Krueger M.
Albot R.[4]
0-66-46-4
Barrere G.[9]
Zverev M.
6-33-67-5
Nakashima B.
Sugita Y.[7]
6-36-2
Caruso S.[10]
Kwiatkowski T.
6-46-2
Giron M.[14]
Peniston R.
6-27-64
Sinner J.[6]
Verbeek S.
6-06-1
Sock J.
Humbert U.[1]
7-656-4
Sarmiento R.
Gojowczyk P.[16]
4-66-36-2
Korda S.
Oconnell C.[15]
6-16-1
Tiafoe F.[8]
Mmoh M.
6-46-3
Kudla D.[11]
Janvier M.
6-26-1
Donskoy E.[13]
Redlicki M.
7-646-0
Marcora R.
Arneodo R.
4-66-17-68
R64
Mmoh M.
Santillan A.
6-06-3
Polmans M.
Nanda G.
6-26-3
Krueger M.
Sela D.
0-67-647-5
Redlicki M.
Li Z.
6-26-2
Mcdonald M.
Mott B.
6-06-4
Rubin N.
Petrovic D.
3-67-646-1
Verbeek S.
Cressy M.
7-646-3
Sarmiento R.
Copil M.
6-36-3
Zverev M.
Aragone J.
5-76-07-66
Korda S.
Holt B.
6-36-1
Nakashima B.
Broady L.
6-26-3
Kwiatkowski T.
Chung H.
7-626-2
Peniston R.
Smith K.
7-656-4
Marcora R.
Brymer G.
6-46-3
Janvier M.
Klahn B.
6-46-4
Sock J.
Uchida K.
6-15-76-2