Maxime Cressy vs John Isner — Newport Semi-final

Newport · ATP · Semi-final
USA4
Maxime Cressy
#1472ATP
29 yrs · 201 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLLLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 11 July 2022
grass
USA2
John Isner
41 yrs · 208 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLWLLWWW
Cressy M.
6-2 4-6 6-3
Isner J.
Cressy M.
6462
Isner J.
2631

Maxime Cressy defeated John Isner 6-2 4-6 6-3 in the Newport semi-final on grass. The result followed the form book — Maxime Cressy came in leading the head-to-head 1–0, defending last year's quarter-final. Maxime Cressy extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Maxime Cressy closed it out in three sets, 6–2 4–6 6–3.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2022-01-17Australian OpenR128hardMaxime Cressy7-6(2) 7-5 6-7(4) 6-7(4) 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Cressy M.serving98% hold

wins 82% of points on serve vs Isner J.

Isner J.serving98% hold

wins 82% of points on serve vs Cressy M.

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
Cressy M.Isner J.
1st serve in·Slight edge
61%
68%
1st serve points won·Even
79%
80%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
54%
Service points won·Even
68%
72%
Return points won·Even
32%
28%
Break points saved·Slight edge
64%
70%
Aces / match·Dominant
13.3
21.7
Double faults / match·Dominant
9.0
2.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (179 vs 63). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Cressy M.Isner J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
24
64
Break points saved·Even
96
99
Break points won·Even
2
0
Deciding sets·Dominant
32
91
Tiebreaks·Dominant
8
98

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Cressy M.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Isner J.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.9
Surface form
6.9
Fatigue & Travel
5.7
Minutes 14d
4.6
4.0
3-set count
0.0
0.0
Prev. match
4.0
Context
7.0
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
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Cressy M.[4]
Bublik A.[3]
2-66-37-63
Semi-finals
Bublik A.[3]
Kubler J.
6-36-2
Cressy M.[4]
Isner J.[2]
6-24-66-3
Quarter-finals
Cressy M.[4]
Johnson S.
6-736-46-4
Bublik A.[3]
Murray A.[6]
7-56-4
Isner J.[2]
Bonzi B.[5]
7-626-767-65
Kubler J.
Duckworth J.[8]
7-57-63
R16
Kubler J.
Auger Aliassime F.[1]
4-66-37-64
Isner J.[2]
Gojowczyk P.
6-37-66
Bonzi B.[5]
Eubanks C.
6-47-65
Duckworth J.[8]
Halys Q.
7-53-66-2
Cressy M.[4]
Krueger M.
6-36-4
Johnson S.
Vesely J.[7]
W/O
Bublik A.[3]
Sock J.
6-33-66-2
Murray A.[6]
Purcell M.
4-66-26-1
R32
Bonzi B.[5]
Blumberg W.
2-66-36-2
Duckworth J.[8]
Broady L.
6-24-66-2
Sock J.
Albot R.
6-17-62
Purcell M.
Mannarino A.
6-31-67-5
Murray A.[6]
Querrey S.
6-26-0
Vesely J.[7]
Lopez F.
6-46-2
Eubanks C.
Koepfer D.
6-47-5
Gojowczyk P.
Humbert U.
7-56-4
Krueger M.
Van Rijthoven T.
7-674-66-3
Kubler J.
Thompson J.
6-26-3
Halys Q.
Popyrin A.
7-656-3
Johnson S.
Kozlov S.
7-56-3