Jack Sock vs Mikael Torpegaard — Savannah CH Round of 32

Savannah CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
USA4
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 25 April 2022
clay
DEN
Mikael Torpegaard
32 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWLLWL
Sock J.
6-3 6-7 6-4
Torpegaard M.
Sock J.
66362
Torpegaard M.
37741

Jack Sock defeated Mikael Torpegaard 6-3 6-7 6-4 in the Savannah CH round of 32 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

  • Match story: Jack Sock closed it out in three sets, 6–3 6–7 6–4.

Head to head

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

Serve vs return

This season
Sock J.serving75% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Torpegaard M.

Torpegaard M.serving73% hold

wins 60% 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.Torpegaard M.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
69%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
52%
45%
Service points won·Slight edge
65%
59%
Return points won·Slight edge
36%
41%
Break points saved·Slight edge
62%
51%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.0
4.5
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.2
3.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (60 vs 22). 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.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Torpegaard M.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
10.0
H2H
0.0
5.7
Surface form
4.5
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
7.5
Minutes 14d
4.7
3-set count
4.0
9.0
Prev. match
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