Denis Kudla vs Tomas Machac — Nottingham 1 CH Round of 32

Nottingham 1 CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
USA6
Denis Kudla
33 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 7 June 2021
grass
Tomas Machac
CZE
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1706Grass ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
Kudla D.
6-3 4-6 6-4
Machac T.
Kudla D.
6462
Machac T.
3641

Denis Kudla defeated Tomas Machac 6-3 4-6 6-4 in the Nottingham 1 CH round of 32 on grass.

Key context

  • Match story: Denis Kudla closed it out in three sets, 6–3 4–6 6–4.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Kudla D.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Machac T.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Kudla D.

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

Statistics

This season
Kudla D.Machac T.
1st serve in·Even
59%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
54%
Service points won·Even
63%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
38%
Break points saved·Even
60%
62%
Aces / match·Even
5.6
5.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.7
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Kudla D.Machac T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
50
90
Break points saved·Slight edge
90
98
Break points won·Dominant
19
80
Deciding sets·Clear edge
81
94
Tiebreaks·Dominant
30
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Kudla D.
5.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Machac T.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.0
Surface form
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.8
Minutes 14d
9.3
7.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
9.0
3.0
Surface transition
3.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
5.0

The Umpiry Score combines match-context factors — matchup, form, fatigue, travel and motivation — into a single 0–10 score, updated daily. Read how it works.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Tiafoe F.[2]
Kudla D.[6]
6-16-3
Semi-finals
Tiafoe F.[2]
Copil M.
6-36-2
Kudla D.[6]
Majchrzak K.[8]
6-41-67-66
Quarter-finals
Tiafoe F.[2]
Donskoy E.
7-642-66-3
Majchrzak K.[8]
Seppi A.[3]
4-66-26-3
Kudla D.[6]
Evans D.[1]
6-41-66-4
Copil M.
Anderson K.[4]
7-647-69
R16
Tiafoe F.[2]
Marchenko I.
7-57-65
Copil M.
Ofner S.
6-46-4
Majchrzak K.[8]
Vukic A.
5-77-6106-4
Seppi A.[3]
Hoang A.
6-46-746-2
Kudla D.[6]
Broady L.
3-66-37-62
Anderson K.[4]
Rosol L.
6-36-4
Donskoy E.
Nakashima B.
7-637-62
Evans D.[1]
Ebden M.
7-667-64
R32
Majchrzak K.[8]
Gunneswaran P.
6-00-0
Donskoy E.
Mcdonald M.[5]
6-37-5
Anderson K.[4]
Clarke J.
6-37-60
Rosol L.
Cressy M.
6-46-756-3
Ofner S.
Gojo B.
6-36-7107-66
Copil M.
Dzumhur D.[7]
6-44-66-1
Kudla D.[6]
Machac T.
6-34-66-4
Ebden M.
Peniston R.
6-46-4
Evans D.[1]
Kokkinakis T.
4-67-617-65
Broady L.
Bolt A.
7-53-66-3
Tiafoe F.[2]
Huesler M.
6-36-4
Marchenko I.
Gaio F.
6-26-3
Nakashima B.
Vilella Martinez M.
6-36-2
Hoang A.
Fabbiano T.
7-657-63
Vukic A.
Polmans M.
7-6104-66-3
Seppi A.[3]
Zhang Z.
7-646-2