Tennys Sandgren vs Strong Kirchheimer — Lexington CH Round of 16

Lexington CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
USA5
Tennys Sandgren
34 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 31 July 2023
hard
Strong Kirchheimer
USA
Strong Kirchheimer
#634ATP
31 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLWLLWL
Sandgren T.
6-2 6-4
Kirchheimer S.
Sandgren T.
662
Kirchheimer S.
240

Tennys Sandgren defeated Strong Kirchheimer 6-2 6-4 in the Lexington CH round of 16 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Strong Kirchheimer came in defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Sandgren T.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Kirchheimer S.

Kirchheimer S.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Sandgren 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

Statistics

This season
Sandgren T.Kirchheimer S.
1st serve in·Even
61%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
76%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
52%
Service points won·Even
65%
62%
Return points won·Even
36%
36%
Break points saved·Even
60%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
9.0
4.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.3
2.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (71 vs 124). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Sandgren T.Kirchheimer S.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
36
5
Break points saved·Dominant
92
63
Break points won·Even
2
0
Deciding sets·Clear edge
28
9
Tiebreaks·Dominant
86
24

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Sandgren T.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Kirchheimer S.
5.5
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.0
Surface form
2.5
0.0Lost last 4
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
9.1
Minutes 14d
7.0
3-set count
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-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