Steve Johnson vs Tennys Sandgren — Lexington CH Semi-final

Lexington CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
USA2
Steve Johnson
36 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLWWWWLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 31 July 2023
hard
USA5
Tennys Sandgren
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
Johnson S.
7-6 6-3
Sandgren T.
Johnson S.
7762
Sandgren T.
6130

Steve Johnson defeated Tennys Sandgren 7-6 6-3 in the Lexington CH semi-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Steve Johnson came in leading the head-to-head 2–0. Steve Johnson extended the head-to-head to 3–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Steve Johnson closed it out in two sets, 7–6 6–3.

Head to head

2–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2020-02-10New YorkR32hardSteve Johnson6-7(5) 6-3 7-6(3)
2018-04-09HoustonFclaySteve Johnson7-6(2) 2-6 6-4

Serve vs return

This season
Johnson S.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Sandgren T.

Sandgren T.serving92% hold

wins 72% of points on serve vs Johnson S.

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
Johnson S.Sandgren T.
1st serve in·Even
59%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
76%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
49%
Service points won·Even
65%
66%
Return points won·Even
33%
36%
Break points saved·Even
60%
60%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.4
9.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.3
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (44 vs 71). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Johnson S.Sandgren T.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
36
Break points saved·Slight edge
97
92
Break points won·Slight edge
10
2
Deciding sets·Dominant
64
28
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
76
86

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Johnson S.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Sandgren T.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.7
Surface form
4.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
8.5
Minutes 14d
9.1
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
Surface transition
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Johnson S.[2]
Cazaux A.[1]
7-656-4
Semi-finals
Cazaux A.[1]
Kingsley C.
6-27-66
Johnson S.[2]
Sandgren T.[5]
7-616-3
Quarter-finals
Cazaux A.[1]
Mayo A.
6-16-4
Sandgren T.[5]
Hong S.[4]
6-46-2
Kingsley C.
Wu T.[3]
6-36-2
Johnson S.[2]
Blanch U.
6-36-4
R16
Wu T.[3]
Vallejo A.
6-47-64
Mayo A.
Schoolkate T.[8]
3-66-46-3
Cazaux A.[1]
Jasika O.
6-26-3
Hong S.[4]
Tomic B.
6-16-2
Sandgren T.[5]
Kirchheimer S.
6-26-4
Blanch U.
Walton A.[7]
6-36-3
Kingsley C.
Sweeny D.[6]
6-47-5
Johnson S.[2]
Spizzirri E.
6-37-5
R32
Kirchheimer S.
Damm M.
6-747-657-64
Sweeny D.[6]
Boyer T.
6-36-4
Spizzirri E.
Harrison C.
7-646-4
Blanch U.
Mchugh A.
7-626-4
Walton A.[7]
Janvier M.
4-66-36-3
Sandgren T.[5]
Lapadat J.
7-56-3
Vallejo A.
Bolt A.
6-44-66-1
Wu T.[3]
Langmo C.
6-46-4
Mayo A.
Ponwith N.
6-46-1
Hong S.[4]
Ly N.
6-17-5
Tomic B.
Dostanic S.
6-42-66-1
Jasika O.
Peniston R.
7-56-2
Cazaux A.[1]
Boulais J.
7-54-66-4
Schoolkate T.[8]
Sekulic P.
3-67-636-1
Kingsley C.
Mochizuki Y.
6-44-66-3
Johnson S.[2]
Harris B.
7-656-4