Juncheng Shang vs Brandon Holt — Indianapolis CH Round of 32

Indianapolis CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
CHN
Juncheng Shang
#274ATP
1746ELO
1698Hard ELO
21 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 18 July 2022
hard
USA
Brandon Holt
#657ATP
1537ELO
1507Hard ELO
28 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLLWW
Shang J.
4-6 7-6 6-3
Holt B.
Shang J.
47762
Holt B.
66131

Juncheng Shang defeated Brandon Holt 4-6 7-6 6-3 in the Indianapolis CH round of 32 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Shang J.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Holt B.

Holt B.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Shang J.

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

Serve & return on hard

Shang J.Holt B.
34
Serve
—
18
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Shang J.Holt B.
1st serve in·Even
64%
66%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
51%
Service points won·Even
63%
63%
Return points won·Even
37%
39%
Break points saved·Even
62%
61%
Aces / match·Slight edge
3.7
4.9
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.7
1.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (197 vs 199). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Shang J.Holt B.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
76
58
Break points saved·Slight edge
96
85
Break points won·Clear edge
45
31
Deciding sets·Clear edge
94
79
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
86
69

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Shang J.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Holt B.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.4+191 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
2.6Hard Elo 1507
7.6Overall Elo 1746
ELO gap
2.4Overall Elo 1537
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.6
Surface form
5.3
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
7.1
Minutes 14d
8.3
7.0
3-set count
7.0
8.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.0
Surface transition
7.0
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
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Wu Y.
Kovacevic A.
6-7107-6136-3
Semi-finals
Kovacevic A.
Shelton B.
6-47-5
Wu Y.
Uchiyama Y.
7-56-3
Quarter-finals
Wu Y.
Rybakov A.
6-36-3
Kovacevic A.
Koepfer D.[5]
7-57-65
Uchiyama Y.
Eubanks C.[8]
7-636-746-4
Shelton B.
Purcell M.
7-656-4
R16
Purcell M.
Mchugh A.
6-756-36-4
Kovacevic A.
Shimabukuro S.
6-36-4
Eubanks C.[8]
Shang J.
7-56-3
Rybakov A.
Galarneau A.
6-45-76-3
Wu Y.
Gojowczyk P.[1]
6-46-2
Koepfer D.[5]
Tu L.
6-26-3
Uchiyama Y.
Harris B.
6-47-67
Shelton B.
Van Rijthoven T.[2]
6-771-2
R32
Gojowczyk P.[1]
Basavareddy N.
7-647-63
Purcell M.
Broady L.[6]
6-26-2
Eubanks C.[8]
Brouwer G.
6-46-2
Uchiyama Y.
Ramanathan R.
4-66-46-1
Harris B.
Wolf J.[4]
6-46-717-61
Rybakov A.
Krueger M.[7]
7-6107-5
Galarneau A.
Watanuki Y.
6-36-3
Shelton B.
Hijikata R.
6-36-4
Tu L.
Pervolarakis M.
6-46-3
Shang J.
Holt B.
4-67-616-3
Wu Y.
Habib H.
7-626-2
Mchugh A.
Gojo B.
7-56-2
Koepfer D.[5]
Couacaud E.
6-16-3
Kovacevic A.
Kozlov S.[3]
6-36-746-4
Shimabukuro S.
Fratangelo B.
6-46-3
Van Rijthoven T.[2]
Zhu E.
6-727-657-63