Patrick Kypson vs Bernard Tomic — Charlottesville CH Round of 32

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
Patrick Kypson
USA6
Patrick Kypson
#112ATP
1641ELO
1611Hard ELO
$260kYTD
$1.1MCAREER
26 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWLLLWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 28 October 2024
hard
Bernard Tomic
AUS
Bernard Tomic
#206ATP
1475ELO
1441Hard ELO
$117kYTD
$6.8MCAREER
33 yrs · 196 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLWLLL
Kypson P.
6-3 6-0
Tomic B.
Kypson P.
662
Tomic B.
300

Patrick Kypson defeated Bernard Tomic 6-3 6-0 in the Charlottesville CH round of 32 on hard. The result followed the form book — Patrick Kypson came in ranked #112, defending last year's semi-final.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Kypson P.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Tomic B.

Tomic B.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

Statistics

This season
Kypson P.Tomic B.
1st serve in·Even
62%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
75%
72%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
50%
Service points won·Even
67%
63%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Even
66%
63%
Aces / match·Clear edge
7.7
5.6
Double faults / match·Even
2.1
1.9

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (139 vs 153). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Kypson P.Tomic B.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
42
53
Break points saved·Even
93
92
Break points won·Dominant
41
4
Deciding sets·Dominant
17
74
Tiebreaks·Even
76
79

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Kypson P.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Tomic B.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.7+170 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.3Hard Elo 1441
6.4Overall Elo 1641
ELO gap
3.6Overall Elo 1475
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.7
Surface form
6.5
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
5.1
Minutes 14d
7.4
7.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
9.0
Context
8.5
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.Tomic B.
Freshness·Slight edge
94
84

Kypson P.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d) · Tomic B.: 5 days rest · 2 matches, 45 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Trotter J.
Basavareddy N.
6-36-4
Semi-finals
Basavareddy N.
Galarneau A.
6-46-2
Trotter J.
Tien L.[2]
6-33-66-2
Quarter-finals
Basavareddy N.
Rodesch C.
6-46-767-65
Galarneau A.
Quinn E.
6-36-2
Trotter J.
Smith C.
7-642-67-64
Tien L.[2]
Lajal M.
3-66-16-4
R16
Basavareddy N.
Zahraj P.
6-26-0
Rodesch C.
Jubb P.[8]
6-777-56-4
Galarneau A.
Dietrich D.
6-27-65
Quinn E.
Kasnikowski M.[5]
7-56-0
Smith C.
Opelka R.
6-756-46-4
Trotter J.
Holt B.
6-26-3
Lajal M.
Kypson P.[6]
7-646-3
Tien L.[2]
Mejia N.
6-47-68
R32
Kasnikowski M.[5]
Edmund K.
4-66-46-2
Zahraj P.
Eubanks C.[1]
6-17-67
Basavareddy N.
Spizzirri E.
6-46-3
Rodesch C.
Nanda G.
6-46-3
Jubb P.[8]
Kodat T.
6-46-2
Dietrich D.
Svajda Z.[4]
6-36-3
Galarneau A.
Nakagawa N.
6-46-1
Quinn E.
Couacaud E.
6-17-67
Opelka R.
Popko D.[7]
5-76-17-61
Smith C.
Ilagan A.
6-37-5
Holt B.
Rybakov A.
7-56-4
Trotter J.
Krueger M.[3]
7-57-66
Kypson P.[6]
Tomic B.
6-36-0
Lajal M.
Searle H.
6-36-3
Mejia N.
Kudla D.
0-66-37-5
Tien L.[2]
Zhukayev B.
2-66-46-2