Jack Sock vs Bjorn Fratangelo — Savannah CH Semi-final

Savannah CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
USA4
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 25 April 2022
clay
USA8
Bjorn Fratangelo
32 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWLLWLL
Sock J.
6-2 6-4
Fratangelo B.
Sock J.
662
Fratangelo B.
240

Jack Sock defeated Bjorn Fratangelo 6-2 6-4 in the Savannah CH semi-final on clay. 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

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2015-08-16Cincinnati MastersR64hardJack Sock6-1 6-2

Serve vs return

This season
Sock J.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Fratangelo B.

Fratangelo B.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Sock J.

Even serve battle

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.Fratangelo B.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Even
65%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
38%
Break points saved·Even
63%
66%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.1
4.3
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.3
2.2

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (60 vs 45). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Sock J.Fratangelo B.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
67
59
Break points saved·Slight edge
96
88
Break points won·Clear edge
28
13
Deciding sets·Even
86
87
Tiebreaks·Even
82
81

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Sock J.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Fratangelo B.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.7
Surface form
5.5
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.5
Minutes 14d
9.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Sock J.[4]
Harrison C.
6-46-1
Semi-finals
Sock J.[4]
Fratangelo B.[8]
6-26-4
Harrison C.
Wolf J.[6]
6-16-3
Quarter-finals
Sock J.[4]
Zhang Z.
6-43-66-3
Harrison C.
Etcheverry T.[1]
6-46-2
Fratangelo B.[8]
Pereira J.
6-24-67-63
Wolf J.[6]
Rybakov A.
6-36-4
R16
Fratangelo B.[8]
Brouwer G.
7-656-3
Zhang Z.
Nanda G.
6-46-3
Wolf J.[6]
Kubler J.
6-32-66-2
Rybakov A.
Jung J.
7-56-4
Harrison C.
Galarneau A.
6-26-3
Pereira J.
Crawford O.
6-46-3
Sock J.[4]
Nagal S.
6-36-3
Etcheverry T.[1]
Fils A.
1-66-33-0
R32
Rybakov A.
Uchida K.
6-36-2
Etcheverry T.[1]
Mayo A.
6-46-1
Fils A.
Kuhn N.
4-66-16-3
Pereira J.
Kozlov S.[2]
6-16-0
Harrison C.
Clark E.
6-16-3
Galarneau A.
Sandgren T.[7]
6-36-1
Sock J.[4]
Torpegaard M.
6-36-736-4
Fratangelo B.[8]
Safwat M.
6-06-0
Crawford O.
Tien L.
6-36-1
Brouwer G.
Rubin N.
6-26-1
Nagal S.
Wu T.
6-27-5
Zhang Z.
Kirchheimer S.
7-56-3
Nanda G.
Barrios Vera T.[5]
6-23-67-65
Wolf J.[6]
Ramanathan R.
7-646-0
Kubler J.
Mmoh M.
6-31-1
Jung J.
Gomez E.[3]
6-24-4