Tomas Machac vs Jason Kubler — Sarasota CH Quarter-final

Sarasota CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
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, 10 April 2023
clay
AUS1
Jason Kubler
#468ATP
1685ELO
1616Clay ELO
33 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWWWWWWLLW
Machac T.
6-4 6-2
Kubler J.
Machac T.
662
Kubler J.
420

Tomas Machac defeated Jason Kubler 6-4 6-2 in the Sarasota CH quarter-final on clay. The result followed the form book — Tomas Machac came in ranked #53.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Machac T.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Kubler J.

Kubler J.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Machac T.

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

Serve & return on clay

Machac T.Kubler 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.Kubler J.
1st serve in·Even
63%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
65%
Return points won·Even
38%
37%
Break points saved·Even
62%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
6.6
Double faults / match·Even
2.5
2.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 86). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Machac T.Kubler J.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
90
59
Break points saved·Slight edge
98
90
Break points won·Dominant
80
46
Deciding sets·Clear edge
94
79
Tiebreaks·Dominant
97
37

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Machac T.
7.5
Dominant favouriteUmpiry Score
Kubler J.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.7+167 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.3Clay Elo 1616
7.1Overall Elo 1866
ELO gap
2.9Overall Elo 1685
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.3
Surface form
7.1
7.03-match win streak
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
5.9
Minutes 14d
7.3
9.0
Prev. match
9.0
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Altmaier D.[5]
Galan D.[3]
7-616-1
Semi-finals
Altmaier D.[5]
Couacaud E.
6-26-2
Galan D.[3]
Machac T.
6-46-1
Quarter-finals
Altmaier D.[5]
Diallo G.
5-2
Couacaud E.
Olivieri G.
6-21-67-66
Galan D.[3]
Vukic A.
6-27-63
Machac T.
Kubler J.[1]
6-46-2
R16
Galan D.[3]
Boyer T.
6-43-0
Olivieri G.
Fratangelo B.
3-66-37-60
Altmaier D.[5]
Bergs Z.
7-56-4
Vukic A.
Ugo Carabelli C.
7-666-0
Machac T.
Kodat T.
6-41-66-1
Couacaud E.
Zhang Z.[2]
6-36-3
Diallo G.
Krueger M.
6-26-4
Kubler J.[1]
Hong S.
6-36-4
R32
Couacaud E.
Kudla D.
5-1
Fratangelo B.
Cerundolo J.[7]
6-47-5
Bergs Z.
Potenza L.
6-37-5
Altmaier D.[5]
Damm M.
6-756-37-5
Boyer T.
Sock J.
3-66-47-63
Vukic A.
Popko D.
6-16-1
Ugo Carabelli C.
Alves M.
6-47-66
Zhang Z.[2]
Rybakov A.
6-47-61
Machac T.
Brouwer G.[8]
6-36-2
Hong S.
Svajda Z.
6-06-0
Kubler J.[1]
Wu T.
6-46-3
Galan D.[3]
Shang J.
6-36-2
Kodat T.
Noguchi R.
6-31-67-5
Krueger M.
Gomez E.[4]
7-56-3
Olivieri G.
Harrison C.
6-44-67-5
Diallo G.
Diaz Acosta F.
3-66-27-65