Jack Sock vs Mikael Torpegaard — Charlottesville CH Round of 32

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
USA4
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 November 2021
hard
DEN
Mikael Torpegaard
32 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLLW
Sock J.
6-4 6-4
Torpegaard M.
Sock J.
662
Torpegaard M.
440

Jack Sock defeated Mikael Torpegaard 6-4 6-4 in the Charlottesville CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Jack Sock came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Jack Sock extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Jack Sock edged a tight contest from start to finish — 6–4 6–4.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2020-09-28Roland GarrosQ1clayJack Sock6-2 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Sock J.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Torpegaard M.

Torpegaard M.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Sock J.

Serve advantage — Sock J.

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
Sock J.Torpegaard M.
1st serve in·Even
61%
59%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
69%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
52%
47%
Service points won·Slight edge
65%
60%
Return points won·Even
36%
38%
Break points saved·Clear edge
64%
49%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.3
4.4
Double faults / match·Even
3.5
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (98 vs 56). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Sock J.Torpegaard M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
67
4
Break points saved·Dominant
96
35
Break points won·Clear edge
28
13
Deciding sets·Dominant
86
16
Tiebreaks·Dominant
82
39

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Sock J.
5.1
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Torpegaard M.
4.6
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
3.5
Surface form
4.7
0.0Lost last 3
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.1
3-set count
7.0
6.0
Prev. match
7.0
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
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Kozlov S.
Vukic A.
6-26-3
Semi-finals
Kozlov S.
Wolf J.
6-16-716-0
Vukic A.
Schnur B.
6-46-1
Quarter-finals
Kozlov S.
Nava E.
6-46-2
Vukic A.
Sock J.[4]
6-47-5
Wolf J.
Kwiatkowski T.
7-56-4
Schnur B.
Gunneswaran P.
7-56-3
R16
Schnur B.
Harrison C.
7-616-747-66
Sock J.[4]
Stebe C.
6-26-3
Vukic A.
Wu T.
3-66-36-2
Kwiatkowski T.
Watanuki Y.
7-646-1
Nava E.
Soeda G.
2-67-656-2
Kozlov S.
Kubler J.
6-36-1
Wolf J.
Kudla D.
6-27-65
Gunneswaran P.
Montes De La Torre I.
6-17-5
R32
Kudla D.
Krueger M.[3]
6-36-2
Vukic A.
Popko D.[5]
6-37-5
Watanuki Y.
Eubanks C.
6-22-66-4
Kozlov S.
Fratangelo B.[7]
7-56-2
Kubler J.
Von Der Schulenburg J.
7-657-5
Soeda G.
Ito T.
7-607-5
Nava E.
Pospisil V.[1]
6-44-67-63
Gunneswaran P.
Daniel T.[2]
6-727-656-2
Wu T.
Chappell N.
6-46-3
Wolf J.
Damm M.
7-56-4
Kwiatkowski T.
Rola B.[8]
7-632-67-5
Montes De La Torre I.
Polansky P.
6-34-67-65
Schnur B.
Uchiyama Y.
2-66-26-0
Harrison C.
Jung J.[6]
7-56-4
Sock J.[4]
Torpegaard M.
6-46-4
Stebe C.
Mmoh M.
6-46-716-2