Maxime Cressy vs Tomas Machac — Eckental CH Semi-final

Eckental CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
USA6
Maxime Cressy
#1472ATP
29 yrs · 201 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 1 November 2021
hard
Tomas Machac
CZE5
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1829Hard ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
Cressy M.
6-3 3-6 7-6
Machac T.
Cressy M.
63772
Machac T.
36651

Maxime Cressy defeated Tomas Machac 6-3 3-6 7-6 in the Eckental CH semi-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Tomas Machac came in ranked #53, defending last year's round of 32. Maxime Cressy extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Maxime Cressy closed it out in three sets, 6–3 3–6 7–6.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2022-01-17Australian OpenR64hardMaxime Cressy6-1 3-6 6-1 7-6(5)
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Cressy M.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Machac T.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Cressy M.

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

Cressy M.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
Cressy M.Machac T.
1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
79%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
54%
Service points won·Even
68%
64%
Return points won·Slight edge
33%
38%
Break points saved·Even
65%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
13.2
5.0
Double faults / match·Dominant
8.6
2.5

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Cressy M.Machac T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
24
90
Break points saved·Even
96
98
Break points won·Dominant
2
80
Deciding sets·Dominant
32
94
Tiebreaks·Dominant
8
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Cressy M.
6.6
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Machac T.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.9
Surface form
4.8
Fatigue & Travel
5.3
Minutes 14d
8.1
0.0
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Masur D.
Cressy M.[6]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Cressy M.[6]
Machac T.[5]
6-33-67-65
Masur D.
Huesler M.
6-26-3
Quarter-finals
Cressy M.[6]
Vesely J.[2]
7-607-63
Huesler M.
Thompson J.[1]
6-36-1
Masur D.
Ramanathan R.
6-36-3
Machac T.[5]
Stricker D.
6-46-4
R16
Thompson J.[1]
Bemelmans R.
6-13-1
Machac T.[5]
Squire H.
6-27-64
Cressy M.[6]
Blancaneaux G.
6-36-4
Vesely J.[2]
Vavassori A.
6-46-1
Ramanathan R.
Marterer M.
7-57-64
Huesler M.
Miedler L.
3-66-26-1
Stricker D.
Copil M.
7-636-2
Masur D.
Basic M.
6-36-4
R32
Vesely J.[2]
Forejtek J.
6-15-77-5
Blancaneaux G.
Furness E.
6-16-1
Copil M.
Sachko V.
2-66-26-4
Squire H.
Erler A.
7-632-67-65
Basic M.
Moeller M.
6-27-5
Masur D.
Otte O.[4]
6-26-736-4
Huesler M.
Heyman C.
6-16-1
Stricker D.
Rodionov J.[3]
5-77-656-4
Bemelmans R.
Simon T.
6-766-37-5
Vavassori A.
Bachinger M.
6-43-66-3
Machac T.[5]
Draper J.
7-654-66-4
Miedler L.
Rehberg M.
6-36-4
Marterer M.
Zuk K.[8]
6-36-4
Thompson J.[1]
Rosenkranz M.
7-56-727-65
Cressy M.[6]
Haerteis J.
6-716-46-3
Ramanathan R.
Setkic A.
7-674-66-3