Tomas Machac vs Jack Sock — Houston Round of 32

Houston · ATP · Round of 32
Tomas Machac
CZE
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1783Clay ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 3 April 2023
clay
USA
Jack Sock
33 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLLWLLLW
Machac T.
6-2 6-4
Sock J.
Machac T.
662
Sock J.
240

Tomas Machac defeated Jack Sock 6-2 6-4 in the Houston round of 32 on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Jack Sock came in defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Machac T.serving81% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Sock J.

Sock J.serving73% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Serve advantage — Machac T.

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 clay

Machac T.Sock J.
12
Serve
—
48
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Machac T.Sock J.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
72%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
53%
47%
Service points won·Even
64%
61%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Slight edge
62%
68%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
7.0
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.5
5.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 7). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Machac T.Sock J.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
90
67
Break points saved·Even
98
96
Break points won·Dominant
80
28
Deciding sets·Slight edge
94
86
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
97
82

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Machac T.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Sock J.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.5
Surface form
7.2
Fatigue & Travel
7.8
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
Surface transition
6.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Tiafoe F.[1]
Etcheverry T.[8]
7-617-66
Semi-finals
Etcheverry T.[8]
Hanfmann Y.
6-36-4
Tiafoe F.[1]
Brouwer G.
6-46-1
Quarter-finals
Etcheverry T.[8]
Garin C.
6-16-726-3
Hanfmann Y.
Machac T.
6-26-1
Tiafoe F.[1]
Kubler J.[6]
6-46-4
Brouwer G.
Wolf J.[5]
6-36-4
R16
Garin C.
Bergs Z.
7-647-61
Hanfmann Y.
Paul T.[2]
7-666-2
Tiafoe F.[1]
Johnson S.
6-26-4
Machac T.
Giron M.[7]
6-46-4
Wolf J.[5]
Kudla D.
6-46-1
Etcheverry T.[8]
Purcell M.
7-656-1
Kubler J.[6]
Galan D.
6-46-2
Brouwer G.
Isner J.[4]
6-47-64
R32
Machac T.
Sock J.
6-26-4
Hanfmann Y.
Watanuki Y.
6-43-66-2
Wolf J.[5]
Thompson J.
6-36-2
Garin C.
Dellien H.
6-36-0
Johnson S.
Bagnis F.
7-651-66-1
Galan D.
Zhang Z.
6-26-3
Purcell M.
Altmaier D.
6-43-66-3
Kubler J.[6]
Verdasco F.
7-676-0
Kudla D.
Vukic A.
6-44-66-4
Etcheverry T.[8]
Cerundolo J.
6-36-4
Brouwer G.
Kovacevic A.
6-46-4
Giron M.[7]
Gomez E.
6-06-2