Filip Misolic vs Jordan Thompson — Tunis CH Round of 16

Tunis CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Filip Misolic
AUT
Filip Misolic
#293ATP
1587ELO
1664Clay ELO
$111kYTD
$1.2MCAREER
24 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLWWLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 16 May 2022
clay
Jordan Thompson
AUS1
Jordan Thompson
#309ATP
1772ELO
1605Clay ELO
$153kYTD
$9.6MCAREER
32 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWLWWLW
Misolic F.
6-7 7-6 6-1
Thompson J.
Misolic F.
657962
Thompson J.
776711

Filip Misolic defeated Jordan Thompson 6-7 7-6 6-1 in the Tunis CH round of 16 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Misolic F.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Thompson J.

Thompson J.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Misolic F.

Serve advantage — Thompson J.

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
Misolic F.Thompson J.
1st serve in·Even
59%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
54%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
66%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
61%
63%
Aces / match·Dominant
3.2
7.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
1.3

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

Clutch

Under pressure
Misolic F.Thompson J.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
79
70
Break points saved·Slight edge
91
97
Break points won·Dominant
53
24
Deciding sets·Even
94
91
Tiebreaks·Even
97
95

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Misolic F.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Thompson J.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
5.7+59 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.3Clay Elo 1605
2.7Overall Elo 1587
ELO gap
7.3Overall Elo 1772
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.7
Surface form
1.1
9.07-match win streak
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
0.0
Minutes 14d
8.4
0.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
6.0
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
Carballes Baena R.[2]
Brouwer G.
6-16-1
Semi-finals
Brouwer G.
Misolic F.
6-26-2
Carballes Baena R.[2]
Zhang Z.[7]
6-26-1
Quarter-finals
Zhang Z.[7]
Ferreira Silva F.[4]
7-56-3
Misolic F.
Kuhn N.[6]
6-36-4
Brouwer G.
Roca Batalla O.
6-46-3
Carballes Baena R.[2]
Geerts M.
7-56-1
R16
Carballes Baena R.[2]
Esteve Lobato E.
6-16-1
Geerts M.
Sels J.[5]
6-14-66-3
Ferreira Silva F.[4]
Sanchez Jover C.
6-37-66
Roca Batalla O.
Erler A.
7-57-62
Misolic F.
Thompson J.[1]
6-757-676-1
Brouwer G.
Janvier M.
6-47-62
Kuhn N.[6]
Michalski D.
6-27-61
Zhang Z.[7]
Sanchez Izquierdo N.
6-37-5
R32
Erler A.
Coppejans K.[8]
7-657-61
Roca Batalla O.
Gill F.
6-16-4
Zhang Z.[7]
Bemelmans R.
6-36-1
Brouwer G.
Setkic A.
7-636-3
Janvier M.
Barranco Cosano J.[3]
6-47-5
Kuhn N.[6]
Hemery C.
6-46-1
Michalski D.
Krstin P.
6-46-0
Thompson J.[1]
Bertola R.
6-16-4
Carballes Baena R.[2]
Brancaccio R.
6-756-06-1
Misolic F.
Miedler L.
6-23-66-1
Esteve Lobato E.
Echargui M.
6-17-5
Geerts M.
Ouakaa A.
2-66-46-1
Sels J.[5]
Jaziri M.
4-66-26-1
Ferreira Silva F.[4]
Mansouri S.
6-46-2
Sanchez Jover C.
Damas M.
6-46-2
Sanchez Izquierdo N.
Vatutin A.
6-32-67-5