Giles Hussey vs Martin Damm — Chicago CH Round of 32

Chicago CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
GBR
Giles Hussey
#258ATP
1584ELO
1517Hard ELO
29 yrs · 185 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWLWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 4 August 2025
hard
Martin Damm
USA
Martin Damm
#104ATP
1706ELO
1657Hard ELO
$338kYTD
$910kCAREER
22 yrs · 203 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWLWWWL
Hussey G.
7-6 7-5
Damm M.
Hussey G.
7772
Damm M.
6250

Giles Hussey defeated Martin Damm 7-6 7-5 in the Chicago CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Martin Damm came in ranked #104, but Giles Hussey had arrived on a 4-match winning run.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Hussey G.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Damm M.

Damm M.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Hussey G.

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
Hussey G.Damm M.
1st serve in·Even
62%
62%
1st serve points won·Clear edge
67%
80%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
52%
Service points won·Slight edge
61%
70%
Return points won·Slight edge
40%
33%
Break points saved·Even
61%
65%
Aces / match·Dominant
3.7
12.9
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.5
4.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (67 vs 73). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Hussey G.Damm M.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
45
26
Break points saved·Dominant
57
93
Break points won·Dominant
57
1
Deciding sets·Dominant
78
5
Tiebreaks·Dominant
13
84

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Hussey G.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Damm M.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry Score
  • Recent retirement (−1.5)
Form & Matchup
1.3Hard Elo 1517
Surface ELO
8.7+139 Hard Elo edge
1.3Overall Elo 1584
ELO gap
8.7Overall Elo 1706
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
8.6
Surface form
6.1
7.04-match win streak
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
4.8
Minutes 14d
7.8
7.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Hussey G.Damm M.
Freshness·Slight edge
99
92

Hussey G.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Damm M.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Zheng M.
Hsu Y.[7]
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Zheng M.
Johns G.
2-66-46-1
Hsu Y.[7]
Holmgren A.[1]
7-623-67-63
Quarter-finals
Holmgren A.[1]
Hussey G.
6-46-4
Hsu Y.[7]
Wu Y.[4]
7-646-4
Zheng M.
Habib H.[3]
6-46-3
Johns G.
Svajda T.
7-56-2
R16
Wu Y.[4]
Nakagawa N.
6-36-2
Hsu Y.[7]
Sell K.
6-36-2
Zheng M.
Zhou Y.
6-43-67-65
Habib H.[3]
Banerjee S.
7-56-4
Svajda T.
Zhukayev B.[5]
6-36-0
Holmgren A.[1]
Ghibaudo A.
6-46-4
Johns G.
Bolt A.
6-22-67-5
Hussey G.
Dostanic S.
4-67-54-2
R32
Dostanic S.
Tomic B.[6]
6-737-642-0
Sell K.
Tobon M.
6-46-3
Holmgren A.[1]
King D.
6-46-4
Ghibaudo A.
Vallejo A.
6-06-2
Zheng M.
Pacheco Mendez R.[8]
7-676-2
Banerjee S.
Rybakov A.
6-26-3
Svajda T.
Jung J.
6-37-67
Johns G.
Harris B.[2]
3-66-36-4
Zhou Y.
Sheehy J.
6-36-2
Wu Y.[4]
Ilagan A.
1-66-26-1
Hsu Y.[7]
Fenty A.
6-26-2
Habib H.[3]
Kang K.
7-676-3
Zhukayev B.[5]
Maloney P.
4-66-36-4
Bolt A.
Huang T.
6-17-67
Nakagawa N.
Perez A.
6-46-3
Hussey G.
Damm M.
7-627-5