Tomas Machac vs Zizou Bergs — Helsinki CH Quarter-final

Helsinki CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
Tomas Machac
CZE5
Tomas Machac
#49ATP
1866ELO
1829Hard ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 14 November 2022
hard
Zizou Bergs
BEL
Zizou Bergs
#37ATP
1808ELO
1757Hard ELO
$995kYTD
$4.0MCAREER
27 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWWWLL
Machac T.
6-1 6-2
Bergs Z.
Machac T.
662
Bergs Z.
120

Tomas Machac defeated Zizou Bergs 6-1 6-2 in the Helsinki CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Tomas Machac came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Tomas Machac extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2026-05-24Roland GarrosR128clayTomas Machac6-4 6-4 6-3
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Machac T.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Bergs Z.

Bergs Z.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Machac T.

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

Serve & return on hard

Machac T.Bergs Z.
30
Serve
25
25
Return
40

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the hard field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Machac T.Bergs Z.
1st serve in·Even
62%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
54%
52%
Service points won·Even
64%
65%
Return points won·Even
38%
38%
Break points saved·Even
62%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
6.6
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
3.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Machac T.Bergs Z.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
90
69
Break points saved·Even
98
95
Break points won·Dominant
80
21
Deciding sets·Even
94
92
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
97
91

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Machac T.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Bergs Z.
4.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.8+73 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.2Hard Elo 1757
5.6Overall Elo 1866
ELO gap
4.4Overall Elo 1808
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.4
Surface form
3.6
7.03-match win streak
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
4.3
Minutes 14d
7.8
4.0
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
7.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Machac T.Bergs Z.
Freshness·
—
74

Bergs Z.: 8 days rest · 4 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Riedi L.
Machac T.[5]
6-36-1
Semi-finals
Machac T.[5]
Hanfmann Y.
6-16-2
Riedi L.
Sels J.[8]
6-36-756-4
Quarter-finals
Machac T.[5]
Bergs Z.
6-16-2
Sels J.[8]
Andreev A.
6-36-4
Riedi L.
Kuzmanov D.
6-46-2
Hanfmann Y.
Kukushkin M.
6-46-1
R16
Machac T.[5]
Virtanen O.
6-46-2
Riedi L.
Marterer M.
7-656-2
Kuzmanov D.
Celikbilek A.
6-46-3
Hanfmann Y.
Peniston R.
6-36-4
Sels J.[8]
Brancaccio R.
4-66-36-2
Andreev A.
Bellucci M.
7-53-67-62
Kukushkin M.
Karlovskiy E.
6-24-2
Bergs Z.
Shevchenko A.
6-43-67-62
R32
Celikbilek A.
Kotov P.[1]
7-677-65
Brancaccio R.
Laaksonen H.
6-36-3
Kukushkin M.
Travaglia S.
6-26-4
Sels J.[8]
Kopriva V.
6-36-756-3
Marterer M.
Ymer E.[7]
6-17-66
Karlovskiy E.
Ritschard A.
7-676-3
Shevchenko A.
Krutykh O.
6-26-3
Bergs Z.
Van Rijthoven T.[3]
7-696-1
Bellucci M.
Gombos N.[4]
4-67-636-1
Riedi L.
Mpetshi Perricard G.
6-16-4
Peniston R.
Saatela L.
6-06-4
Machac T.[5]
Kachmazov A.
7-646-4
Kuzmanov D.
Gaston H.
6-36-3
Andreev A.
Clarke J.
6-13-67-62
Virtanen O.
Lofman A.
6-17-5
Hanfmann Y.
Andujar P.[6]
6-36-4