Go Soeda vs Tatsuma Ito — Charlottesville CH Round of 32

Charlottesville CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
JPN
Go Soeda
41 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 November 2021
hard
JPN
Tatsuma Ito
38 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLWLW
Soeda G.
7-6 7-5
Ito T.
Soeda G.
7772
Ito T.
6050

Go Soeda defeated Tatsuma Ito 7-6 7-5 in the Charlottesville CH round of 32 on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Tatsuma Ito came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Go Soeda claimed a first win over Tatsuma Ito in two meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 1–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2012-04-09HoustonR32clayTatsuma Ito6-4 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Soeda G.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Ito T.

Ito T.serving78% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Soeda G.

Even serve battle

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
Soeda G.Ito T.
1st serve in·Even
60%
59%
1st serve points won·Even
65%
66%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
47%
Service points won·Even
59%
58%
Return points won·Even
35%
37%
Break points saved·Even
55%
57%
Aces / match·Slight edge
2.5
3.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.5
3.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (45 vs 55). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Soeda G.Ito T.
Clutch Rating·Even
23
24
Break points saved·Even
61
61
Break points won·Slight edge
14
9
Deciding sets·Even
46
43
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
26
48

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Soeda G.
4.0
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 42 days (−0.7)
Ito T.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
0.9
Surface form
3.0
0.0Lost last 5
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.6
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Mediumbalanced pace
SlowFast
Final
Kozlov S.
Vukic A.
6-26-3
Semi-finals
Kozlov S.
Wolf J.
6-16-716-0
Vukic A.
Schnur B.
6-46-1
Quarter-finals
Kozlov S.
Nava E.
6-46-2
Vukic A.
Sock J.[4]
6-47-5
Wolf J.
Kwiatkowski T.
7-56-4
Schnur B.
Gunneswaran P.
7-56-3
R16
Schnur B.
Harrison C.
7-616-747-66
Sock J.[4]
Stebe C.
6-26-3
Vukic A.
Wu T.
3-66-36-2
Kwiatkowski T.
Watanuki Y.
7-646-1
Nava E.
Soeda G.
2-67-656-2
Kozlov S.
Kubler J.
6-36-1
Wolf J.
Kudla D.
6-27-65
Gunneswaran P.
Montes De La Torre I.
6-17-5
R32
Kudla D.
Krueger M.[3]
6-36-2
Vukic A.
Popko D.[5]
6-37-5
Watanuki Y.
Eubanks C.
6-22-66-4
Kozlov S.
Fratangelo B.[7]
7-56-2
Kubler J.
Von Der Schulenburg J.
7-657-5
Soeda G.
Ito T.
7-607-5
Nava E.
Pospisil V.[1]
6-44-67-63
Gunneswaran P.
Daniel T.[2]
6-727-656-2
Wu T.
Chappell N.
6-46-3
Wolf J.
Damm M.
7-56-4
Kwiatkowski T.
Rola B.[8]
7-632-67-5
Montes De La Torre I.
Polansky P.
6-34-67-65
Schnur B.
Uchiyama Y.
2-66-26-0
Harrison C.
Jung J.[6]
7-56-4
Sock J.[4]
Torpegaard M.
6-46-4
Stebe C.
Mmoh M.
6-46-716-2