Patrick Kypson vs Ethan Quinn — Champaign CH Semi-final

Champaign CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
Patrick Kypson
USA7
Patrick Kypson
#112ATP
1641ELO
1611Hard ELO
$260kYTD
$1.1MCAREER
26 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWLLLWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 13 November 2023
hard
Ethan Quinn
USA
Ethan Quinn
#47ATP
1804ELO
1767Hard ELO
$724kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
22 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWWLWL
Kypson P.
6-4 6-2
Quinn E.
Kypson P.
662
Quinn E.
420

Patrick Kypson defeated Ethan Quinn 6-4 6-2 in the Champaign CH semi-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Ethan Quinn came in ranked #47, defending last year's round of 16. Patrick Kypson extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2024-03-04Indian Wells MastersR128hardPatrick Kypson6-1 7-6(1)

Serve vs return

This season
Kypson P.serving88% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Quinn E.

Quinn E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Kypson P.

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

Kypson P.Quinn E.
—
Serve
37
—
Return
21

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

Statistics

This season
Kypson P.Quinn E.
1st serve in·Even
62%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
75%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
50%
Service points won·Even
66%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
65%
62%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.2
6.3
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.2
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (194 vs 186). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Kypson P.Quinn E.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
42
71
Break points saved·Even
93
95
Break points won·Clear edge
41
19
Deciding sets·Dominant
17
98
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
76
97

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Kypson P.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Quinn E.
6.8
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
2.9Hard Elo 1611
Surface ELO
7.1+156 Hard Elo edge
2.6Overall Elo 1641
ELO gap
7.4Overall Elo 1804
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.0
Surface form
5.7
0.0
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
5.4
Minutes 14d
2.4
7.0
3-set count
0.0
7.0
Prev. match
6.0
Context
6.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Kypson P.Quinn E.
Freshness·Even
94
97

Kypson P.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d) · Quinn E.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Kypson P.[7]
Michelsen A.[2]
6-46-3
Semi-finals
Michelsen A.[2]
Droguet T.[4]
2-66-46-3
Kypson P.[7]
Quinn E.
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Michelsen A.[2]
Damm M.[8]
6-11-66-4
Kypson P.[7]
Kovacevic A.[1]
7-624-66-3
Quinn E.
Serdarusic N.
6-36-3
Droguet T.[4]
Krueger M.
6-46-1
R16
Quinn E.
Kirchheimer S.
6-16-4
Damm M.[8]
Rosenkranz M.
6-36-4
Serdarusic N.
Zhukayev B.[6]
7-656-4
Kypson P.[7]
Miyoshi K.
6-36-1
Michelsen A.[2]
Fanselow S.
6-36-2
Droguet T.[4]
Holt B.
6-46-3
Kovacevic A.[1]
Ozolins K.
7-656-3
Krueger M.
Rybakov A.
7-656-1
R32
Zhukayev B.[6]
Dalla Valle E.
6-16-1
Holt B.
Montes De La Torre I.
5-76-06-1
Rybakov A.
Rodesch C.
5-76-46-4
Kypson P.[7]
Whitehouse M.
6-17-65
Kovacevic A.[1]
Williams C.
6-32-66-4
Kirchheimer S.
Karlovskiy E.
7-55-4
Krueger M.
Kudla D.[5]
6-747-50-0
Rosenkranz M.
Debru G.
7-673-67-64
Droguet T.[4]
Durasovic V.
6-26-3
Fanselow S.
Mchugh A.
6-24-66-3
Ozolins K.
Kozlov S.
2-66-36-4
Miyoshi K.
Heck H.
6-36-4
Quinn E.
Nava E.[3]
6-36-2
Michelsen A.[2]
Tomic B.
6-46-0
Damm M.[8]
Perez A.
7-636-4
Serdarusic N.
Mayo A.
6-31-66-3