Lukas Lacko vs Tomas Machac — Ismaning CH Round of 16

Ismaning CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
SVK
Lukas Lacko
38 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLLLWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 25 October 2021
hard
Tomas Machac
CZE6
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1829Hard ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
Lacko L.
6-7 6-4 7-6
Machac T.
Lacko L.
626772
Machac T.
774621

Lukas Lacko defeated Tomas Machac 6-7 6-4 7-6 in the Ismaning CH round of 16 on hard. The result followed the form book — Lukas Lacko came in defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Lacko L.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Machac T.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Lacko L.

Serve advantage — Machac T.

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

Lacko L.Machac T.
—
Serve
30
—
Return
25

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

Statistics

This season
Lacko L.Machac T.
1st serve in·Even
59%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
70%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
48%
54%
Service points won·Even
62%
64%
Return points won·Even
34%
38%
Break points saved·Even
59%
62%
Aces / match·Even
5.5
5.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.6
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (60 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Lacko L.Machac T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
26
90
Break points saved·Clear edge
86
98
Break points won·Dominant
8
80
Deciding sets·Dominant
33
94
Tiebreaks·Dominant
27
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Lacko L.
5.2
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 35 days (−0.7)
Machac T.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.7
Surface form
5.3
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Prev. match
6.0
Context
6.0
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
Otte O.[5]
Lacko L.
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Otte O.[5]
Cressy M.[7]
7-52-67-65
Lacko L.
Halys Q.[8]
6-17-65
Quarter-finals
Otte O.[5]
Marterer M.
3-66-37-65
Cressy M.[7]
Zuk K.
6-776-47-64
Halys Q.[8]
Forejtek J.
3-66-26-2
Lacko L.
Bachinger M.
7-53-66-4
R16
Marterer M.
Rosenkranz M.
6-37-63
Otte O.[5]
Lenz J.
6-36-4
Zuk K.
Seppi A.[3]
4-66-47-64
Lacko L.
Machac T.[6]
6-726-47-62
Bachinger M.
Van Rijthoven T.
6-746-46-2
Forejtek J.
Maden Y.
7-633-66-1
Halys Q.[8]
Bemelmans R.
7-686-756-4
Cressy M.[7]
Virtanen O.
7-653-67-5
R32
Marterer M.
Vesely J.[2]
7-686-4
Rosenkranz M.
Huesler M.
6-726-27-60
Lenz J.
Ilkel C.
6-757-56-1
Seppi A.[3]
Kamke T.
7-56-3
Zuk K.
Sachko V.
6-26-4
Virtanen O.
Rehberg M.
7-56-2
Cressy M.[7]
Moriya H.
6-37-5
Machac T.[6]
Coppejans K.
6-46-2
Bachinger M.
Celikbilek A.
6-36-1
Van Rijthoven T.
Hanfmann Y.[4]
5-77-646-4
Bemelmans R.
Squire H.
6-36-4
Forejtek J.
Thompson J.[1]
5-76-26-2
Halys Q.[8]
Masur D.
6-45-76-3
Otte O.[5]
Haase R.
6-746-46-4
Lacko L.
Copil M.
7-687-64
Maden Y.
Moraing M.
W/O