Tim Van Rijthoven vs Tomas Machac — Forli 5 CH Quarter-final

Forli 5 CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
NED
Tim Van Rijthoven
29 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 21 February 2022
hard
Tomas Machac
CZE1
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1829Hard ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
Van Rijthoven T.
6-3 7-6
Machac T.
Van Rijthoven T.
6772
Machac T.
3650

Tim Van Rijthoven defeated Tomas Machac 6-3 7-6 in the Forli 5 CH quarter-final on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Van Rijthoven T.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Machac T.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Van Rijthoven T.

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

Van Rijthoven T.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
Van Rijthoven T.Machac T.
1st serve in·Even
66%
62%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
77%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
54%
Service points won·Slight edge
69%
64%
Return points won·Slight edge
33%
38%
Break points saved·Even
64%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
11.0
5.0
Double faults / match·Even
2.3
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (71 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Van Rijthoven T.Machac T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
26
90
Break points saved·Slight edge
90
98
Break points won·Dominant
1
80
Deciding sets·Dominant
19
94
Tiebreaks·Dominant
61
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Van Rijthoven T.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Machac T.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.3
Surface form
6.8
Fatigue & Travel
2.1
Minutes 14d
5.1
7.0
3-set count
4.0
8.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Draper J.
Ritschard A.
3-66-37-68
Semi-finals
Draper J.
Basic M.
6-26-736-4
Ritschard A.
Van Rijthoven T.
6-37-63
Quarter-finals
Basic M.
Horansky F.
6-36-1
Draper J.
Mmoh M.
5-76-46-2
Ritschard A.
Borges N.
6-47-67
Van Rijthoven T.
Machac T.[1]
6-37-65
R16
Mmoh M.
Bergs Z.[7]
6-46-2
Basic M.
Moraing M.[4]
6-37-64
Horansky F.
Schnur B.
4-67-656-4
Ritschard A.
Marchenko I.[6]
6-37-5
Borges N.
Caruso S.[3]
6-24-67-63
Van Rijthoven T.
Sels J.
6-47-64
Machac T.[1]
Napolitano S.
6-36-4
Draper J.
Ferrari G.
6-26-4
R32
Basic M.
Cobolli F.
6-37-62
Ferrari G.
Dzumhur D.[2]
7-57-64
Draper J.
De Jong J.
4-66-47-64
Mmoh M.
Sachko V.
7-626-4
Bergs Z.[7]
Arnaldi M.
6-47-5
Horansky F.
Giustino L.
6-776-46-3
Schnur B.
Grenier H.[5]
3-66-46-2
Ritschard A.
Elias G.
6-756-26-3
Borges N.
Pellegrino A.
6-47-65
Caruso S.[3]
Ficovich J.
6-46-3
Van Rijthoven T.
Agamenone F.[8]
6-46-4
Sels J.
Maestrelli F.
7-656-3
Napolitano S.
Ejupovic E.
6-756-37-61
Marchenko I.[6]
Uchiyama Y.
6-26-7116-4
Machac T.[1]
Lacko L.
6-26-2
Moraing M.[4]
Arnaboldi A.
6-46-4