Peter Polansky vs Tennys Sandgren — Knoxville CH Round of 32

Knoxville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
CAN
Peter Polansky
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 8 November 2021
hard
USA1
Tennys Sandgren
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
Polansky P.
3-6 7-6 7-6
Sandgren T.
Polansky P.
377772
Sandgren T.
663641

Peter Polansky defeated Tennys Sandgren 3-6 7-6 7-6 in the Knoxville CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Peter Polansky came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Peter Polansky extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2014-08-25US OpenQ1hardPeter Polansky4-6 7-5 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Polansky P.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Sandgren T.

Sandgren T.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Polansky P.

Serve advantage — Sandgren T.

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
Polansky P.Sandgren T.
1st serve in·Slight edge
55%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
64%
Return points won·Even
34%
36%
Break points saved·Even
61%
59%
Aces / match·Dominant
4.1
8.1
Double faults / match·Even
2.6
2.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (43 vs 151). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Polansky P.Sandgren T.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
18
36
Break points saved·Slight edge
82
92
Break points won·Slight edge
12
2
Deciding sets·Clear edge
16
28
Tiebreaks·Dominant
19
86

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Polansky P.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Sandgren T.
4.4
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
2.5
Surface form
4.2
0.0Lost last 5
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.4
Minutes 14d
8.8
7.0
3-set count
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Eubanks C.
Altmaier D.[2]
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Altmaier D.[2]
Mmoh M.
3-66-36-4
Eubanks C.
Fratangelo B.[8]
7-57-5
Quarter-finals
Altmaier D.[2]
Sock J.[5]
3-67-57-62
Mmoh M.
Mchugh A.
3-66-36-1
Fratangelo B.[8]
Nava E.
6-46-4
Eubanks C.
Harrison C.
6-37-69
R16
Mmoh M.
Krueger M.[4]
7-641-66-2
Harrison C.
Jung J.
3-67-634-2
Nava E.
Polansky P.
2-67-620-0
Altmaier D.[2]
Rola B.
7-636-4
Sock J.[5]
Gunneswaran P.
6-37-61
Mchugh A.
Kozlov S.
6-46-4
Eubanks C.
Soeda G.
6-32-67-64
Fratangelo B.[8]
Brouwer G.
6-33-66-3
R32
Soeda G.
Jaziri M.
6-47-66
Harrison C.
Wolf J.[6]
6-26-3
Jung J.
Kubler J.
6-46-1
Rola B.
Kwiatkowski T.
6-37-65
Mmoh M.
Uchiyama Y.
7-56-3
Altmaier D.[2]
Walton A.
6-36-2
Gunneswaran P.
Torpegaard M.
6-27-62
Sock J.[5]
Kovacevic A.
7-647-5
Krueger M.[4]
Ito T.
7-646-3
Kozlov S.
Vukic A.
6-34-67-5
Mchugh A.
Popko D.[7]
6-47-5
Eubanks C.
Pospisil V.[3]
2-66-26-3
Fratangelo B.[8]
Watanuki Y.
6-47-65
Nava E.
Young D.
6-36-2
Polansky P.
Sandgren T.[1]
3-67-637-64
Brouwer G.
Aragone J.
5-76-27-5