Tomas Machac vs Pablo Llamas Ruiz — Prague CH Round of 32

Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Tomas Machac
CZE6
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1783Clay ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 May 2023
clay
Pablo Llamas Ruiz
ESP
Pablo Llamas Ruiz
#116ATP
1757ELO
1732Clay ELO
$268kYTD
$884kCAREER
23 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWLWWW
Machac T.
6-1 6-1
Llamas Ruiz P.
Machac T.
662
Llamas Ruiz P.
110

Tomas Machac defeated Pablo Llamas Ruiz 6-1 6-1 in the Prague CH round of 32 on clay. The result followed the form book — Tomas Machac came in ranked #53, defending last year's semi-final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Machac T.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Llamas Ruiz P.

Llamas Ruiz P.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Serve advantage — Llamas Ruiz P.

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.Llamas Ruiz P.
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.Llamas Ruiz P.
1st serve in·Slight edge
62%
69%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
63%
Return points won·Even
38%
41%
Break points saved·Even
62%
62%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
2.5
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
1.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 163). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Machac T.Llamas Ruiz P.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
90
63
Break points saved·Slight edge
98
88
Break points won·Dominant
80
39
Deciding sets·Clear edge
94
79
Tiebreaks·Dominant
97
72

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Machac T.
7.3
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Llamas Ruiz P.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
5.9+51 Clay Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.1Clay Elo 1732
7.0Overall Elo 1866
ELO gap
3.0Overall Elo 1757
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
7.9
Surface form
7.6
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.2
8.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
8.5
Defending pts
5.0
5.0
Opponent rise

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.Llamas Ruiz P.
Freshness·
—
98

Llamas Ruiz P.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Stricker D.[7]
Ofner S.[8]
7-676-3
Mensik J.
Koepfer D.[6]
6-46-3
Molleker R.[4]
Debru G.
6-26-2
Semi-finals
Ofner S.[8]
Klein L.
7-640-66-3
Stricker D.[7]
Krajinovic F.[1]
7-55-76-3
Mensik J.
Moro Canas A.
6-27-5
Koepfer D.[6]
Kicker N.
6-46-3
Molleker R.[4]
Vacherot V.[8]
6-47-65
Debru G.
Sousa J.[5]
5-76-36-4
Quarter-finals
Krajinovic F.[1]
Koepfer D.
6-16-2
Klein L.
Kolar Z.
6-37-5
Ofner S.[8]
Barrios Vera T.
6-27-5
Stricker D.[7]
Svrcina D.
4-66-16-3
Kicker N.
Laaksonen H.
W/O
Koepfer D.[6]
Klein L.[4]
6-46-766-1
Moro Canas A.
Mochizuki S.
6-36-4
Mensik J.
Santillan A.
3-66-37-66
Debru G.
Kodat T.
7-646-736-4
Vacherot V.[8]
Paulson A.
7-656-2
Molleker R.[4]
Gomez F.
6-36-3
Sousa J.[5]
Darderi L.[3]
7-53-67-63
R16
Koepfer D.
Gombos N.
6-23-66-3
Klein L.
Agamenone F.
6-37-66
Ofner S.[8]
Ugo Carabelli C.
6-46-2
Stricker D.[7]
Meligeni Alves F.
6-756-26-4
Krajinovic F.[1]
Gaio F.
6-24-66-4
Svrcina D.
Paulson A.
6-13-66-0
Barrios Vera T.
Kopriva V.
6-25-77-67
Kolar Z.
Machac T.[6]
7-56-3
Koepfer D.[6]
Furness E.
7-660-0
Santillan A.
Hardt N.
4-66-46-3
Mochizuki S.
Gombos N.[3]
7-687-62
Kicker N.
Fatic N.
7-56-4
Laaksonen H.
Llamas Ruiz P.
6-36-766-2
Mensik J.
Sachko V.
6-46-4
Moro Canas A.
Svajda Z.
6-42-66-4
Klein L.[4]
Andreozzi G.
5-76-36-3
Vacherot V.[8]
Mena F.
6-26-4
Sousa J.[5]
Forejtek J.
6-04-66-4
Darderi L.[3]
Vrbensky M.
6-46-1
Debru G.
Nicod J.
7-56-1
Gomez F.
Giustino L.
6-36-3
Molleker R.[4]
Chazal M.
6-26-2
Paulson A.
Erhard M.
6-36-3
Kodat T.
Laaksonen H.
6-36-3
Debru G.
Nicod J.
7-56-1
R32
Machac T.[6]
Llamas Ruiz P.
6-16-1
Kolar Z.
Bellier A.
3-66-37-65
Gaio F.
Kuzmanov D.
6-47-65
Gombos N.
Piros Z.[5]
2-2
Koepfer D.
Delbonis F.
6-16-4
Meligeni Alves F.
Martinez P.
6-23-0
Kopriva V.
Sachko V.
5-77-56-2
Paulson A.
Peniston R.
2-67-56-1
Ofner S.[8]
Demin Y.
6-46-756-1
Stricker D.[7]
Ivanovski K.
6-26-2
Ugo Carabelli C.
Sels J.
6-26-746-1
Barrios Vera T.
Albot R.[2]
6-36-3
Svrcina D.
Cerundolo J.[3]
6-36-1
Agamenone F.
Gaston H.[4]
7-57-5
Klein L.
Valkusz M.
6-41-66-1
Krajinovic F.[1]
Choinski J.
6-44-66-2
Moro Canas A.
Harris B.
6-23-66-0
Koepfer D.[6]
Elias G.
1-1
Mensik J.
Albot R.[1]
7-644-66-3
Fatic N.
Added D.
5-76-46-3
Laaksonen H.
Stricker D.[2]
7-54-66-1
Sachko V.
Geerts M.
6-16-1
Svajda Z.
Couacaud E.[5]
6-46-1
Furness E.
Kolar Z.
6-46-3
Kicker N.
Dzumhur D.[7]
6-37-63
Andreozzi G.
Rincon D.
6-46-4
Hardt N.
Gaio F.
6-26-4
Klein L.[4]
Demin Y.
7-56-1
Gombos N.[3]
Molleker R.
6-46-4
Llamas Ruiz P.
Vesely J.
6-47-5
Santillan A.
Tseng C.[8]
6-36-0
Mochizuki S.
Vrbensky M.
7-56-3
Erhard M.
Maestrelli F.
7-605-76-3
Vacherot V.[8]
Kivattsev K.
6-46-4
Kodat T.
Hemery C.
6-41-66-2
Nicod J.
Barton H.
1-66-36-2
Vrbensky M.
Jorda Sanchis D.
6-37-5
Paulson A.
Cias P.
6-46-4
Forejtek J.
Barranco Cosano J.
6-43-66-4
Laaksonen H.
Bourgue M.[7]
4-67-636-2
Mena F.
Lopez Montagud C.
7-56-3
Giustino L.
Jianu F.
6-46-3
Chazal M.
Gengel M.
6-26-2
Gomez F.
Squire H.[6]
4-66-46-3
Sousa J.[5]
Royer V.
6-46-1
Darderi L.[3]
Janvier M.
6-36-777-65
Debru G.
Neumayer L.[1]
2-66-36-4
Molleker R.[4]
Rosol L.
6-36-4
Nicod J.
Barton H.
1-66-36-2