Jack Sock vs Steve Johnson — Miami Masters Qualifying Round 2

Miami Masters · ATP · Qualifying Round 2
USA
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 21 March 2022
hard
USA12
Steve Johnson
36 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWWWLL
Sock J.
6-2 6-2
Johnson S.
Sock J.
662
Johnson S.
220

Jack Sock defeated Steve Johnson 6-2 6-2 in the Miami Masters qualifying round 2 on hard. The result followed the form book — Jack Sock came in leading the head-to-head 4–3. Jack Sock extended the head-to-head to 5–3.

Key context

Head to head

4–3
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2020-02-17Delray BeachR16hardSteve Johnson6-4 5-7 6-1
2017-04-10HoustonSFclaySteve Johnson4-6 6-4 6-3
2017-02-20Delray BeachQFhardJack Sock6-4 7-6(4)
2017-01-09AucklandSFhardJack Sock6-4 6-3
2015-08-03WashingtonQFhardSteve Johnson7-6(5) 6-1
2014-05-26Roland GarrosR64clayJack Sock7-5 6-4 6-2
2012-07-16AtlantaR16hardJack Sock7-6(5) 7-6(5)

Serve vs return

This season
Sock J.serving91% hold

wins 71% of points on serve vs Johnson S.

Johnson S.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Sock J.

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

Statistics

This season
Sock J.Johnson S.
1st serve in·Slight edge
63%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
75%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
53%
Service points won·Even
65%
66%
Return points won·Even
36%
33%
Break points saved·Even
63%
64%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.0
8.4
Double faults / match·Even
3.2
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (61 vs 106). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Sock J.Johnson S.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
67
52
Break points saved·Even
96
97
Break points won·Clear edge
28
10
Deciding sets·Clear edge
86
64
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
82
76

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Sock J.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Johnson S.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
0.0
H2H
10.0
5.6
Surface form
4.8
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
7.8
Minutes 14d
7.0
7.0
3-set count
6.0
Prev. match
8.0
7.2
Country comfort
7.0
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
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Weather
25°CMainly clear
Wind 21 km/hHumidity 57%
Q2
Sock J.
Johnson S.[12]
6-26-2
Daniel T.[10]
Fratangelo B.[24]
6-17-64
Kokkinakis T.[6]
Seppi A.[16]
6-36-4
Galan D.[9]
Kicker N.
5-76-36-4
Wolf J.
Popko D.
6-46-4
Kudla D.[8]
Blanch U.
7-682-66-3
Verdasco F.
Grenier H.
6-37-68
Gomez E.[23]
Gojowczyk P.[5]
3-67-646-2
Nishioka Y.[4]
Eubanks C.
2-67-616-1
Kukushkin M.
Mochizuki S.
7-666-2
Krueger M.
Anderson K.[3]
7-657-5
Munar J.[7]
Ymer E.[21]
7-56-3
Q1
Johnson S.[12]
Mmoh M.
6-36-3
Gomez E.[23]
Tirante T.
7-644-66-3
Grenier H.
Pospisil V.[20]
6-47-65
Verdasco F.
Sousa J.[1]
6-44-66-4
Mochizuki S.
Rune H.[2]
6-10-0
Blanch U.
Moraing M.[19]
6-43-1
Gojowczyk P.[5]
Stebe C.
6-26-2
Ymer E.[21]
Sandgren T.
6-776-26-2
Kokkinakis T.[6]
Fabbiano T.
6-16-3
Wolf J.
Querrey S.[11]
6-46-3
Kukushkin M.
Albot R.[14]
4-67-676-2
Daniel T.[10]
Purcell M.
6-26-2
Galan D.[9]
Damm M.
6-36-4
Anderson K.[3]
Bolt A.
6-36-4
Sock J.
Vukic A.[18]
6-42-66-4
Seppi A.[16]
Machac T.
2-66-36-2
Krueger M.
Kozlov S.[15]
6-26-2
Nishioka Y.[4]
Gerasimov E.
6-46-2
Munar J.[7]
Seyboth Wild T.
6-36-2
Fratangelo B.[24]
Clarke J.
6-26-1
Kudla D.[8]
Heide G.
6-756-46-3
Kicker N.
Ebden M.
6-26-1
Eubanks C.
Broady L.[17]
6-46-2
Popko D.
Monteiro T.[13]
6-44-66-4