Antoine Bellier vs Tomas Machac — Helsinki CH Round of 32

Helsinki CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
SUI
Antoine Bellier
29 yrs · 196 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLLLWLW
0 — 0
Sets
Retired
Monday, 6 November 2023
hard
Tomas Machac
CZE1
Tomas Machac
#53ATP
1866ELO
1829Hard ELO
$832kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
25 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWLWW
Bellier A.
4-6 4-1
Machac T.
Bellier A.
44–
Machac T.
61–

Antoine Bellier advanced when Tomas Machac retired 4-6 4-1 in the Helsinki CH round of 32.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Bellier A.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Machac T.

Machac T.serving94% hold

wins 74% of points on serve vs Bellier A.

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

Serve & return on hard

Bellier A.Machac T.
—
Serve
30
—
Return
25

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

Statistics

This season
Bellier A.Machac T.
1st serve in·Even
61%
63%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
78%
70%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
53%
Service points won·Even
68%
64%
Return points won·Slight edge
29%
38%
Break points saved·Even
65%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
11.3
5.0
Double faults / match·Dominant
4.2
2.5

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (81 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Bellier A.Machac T.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
36
90
Break points saved·Slight edge
89
98
Break points won·Dominant
0
80
Deciding sets·Dominant
58
94
Tiebreaks·Dominant
39
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Bellier A.
7.2
Strong advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Machac T.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
9.3
Surface form
6.8
9.07-match win streak
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
2.0
Minutes 14d
6.8
4.0
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
Context
5.0
Defending pts

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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Moutet C.
Nagal S.
6-33-66-2
Semi-finals
Nagal S.
Travaglia S.
6-16-4
Moutet C.
Rinderknech A.[7]
5-77-56-3
Quarter-finals
Nagal S.
Ruusuvuori E.[2]
6-33-1
Travaglia S.
Albot R.
6-43-67-5
Rinderknech A.[7]
Muller A.[4]
6-776-36-1
Moutet C.
Munar J.[5]
6-27-62
R16
Ruusuvuori E.[2]
Molcan A.
6-27-5
Nagal S.
Mensik J.
7-56-2
Albot R.
Borges N.[3]
6-41-66-4
Rinderknech A.[7]
Dzumhur D.
7-56-2
Muller A.[4]
Lajal M.
6-10-66-1
Munar J.[5]
Neuchrist M.
6-27-63
Moutet C.
Bellier A.
6-46-4
Travaglia S.
Yevseyev D.
6-36-0
R32
Bellier A.
Machac T.[1]
4-64-1
Mensik J.
Cobolli F.[6]
7-57-66
Nagal S.
Novak D.
6-26-3
Ruusuvuori E.[2]
De Loore J.
4-66-06-1
Neuchrist M.
Krutykh O.
7-677-5
Yevseyev D.
Virtanen O.
7-56-3
Rinderknech A.[7]
Vavassori A.
6-47-63
Munar J.[5]
Kaukovalta P.
7-56-4
Borges N.[3]
Goffin D.
6-33-66-3
Travaglia S.
Broady L.[8]
6-46-2
Dzumhur D.
Riedi L.
3-66-46-3
Lajal M.
Maestrelli F.
6-16-3
Muller A.[4]
Vasa E.
6-46-3
Moutet C.
Cressy M.
6-46-2
Albot R.
Kachmazov A.
6-26-1
Molcan A.
Bellucci M.
6-02-66-1