Juncheng Shang vs Emilio Gomez — Lexington CH Final

Lexington CH · CHALLENGER · Final
CHN
Juncheng Shang
#274ATP
1746ELO
1698Hard ELO
21 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 1 August 2022
hard
ECU2
Emilio Gomez
34 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLWLLW
Shang J.
6-4 6-4
Gomez E.
Shang J.
662
Gomez E.
440

Juncheng Shang defeated Emilio Gomez 6-4 6-4 in the Lexington CH final on hard. The result followed the form book — Juncheng Shang came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Juncheng Shang extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Juncheng Shang edged a tight contest from start to finish — 6–4 6–4.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2023-07-31WashingtonR64hardJuncheng Shang6-3 6-3

Serve vs return

This season
Shang J.serving80% hold

wins 63% of points on serve vs Gomez E.

Gomez E.serving78% hold

wins 62% 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.Gomez E.
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.Gomez E.
1st serve in·Even
64%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
70%
68%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
53%
48%
Service points won·Even
63%
60%
Return points won·Even
37%
39%
Break points saved·Even
62%
60%
Aces / match·Even
3.7
3.4
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.7
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (197 vs 126). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Shang J.Gomez E.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
76
32
Break points saved·Clear edge
96
77
Break points won·Dominant
45
19
Deciding sets·Dominant
94
23
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
86
79

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Shang J.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Gomez E.
7.3
Strong advantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
5.6
Surface form
9.4
7.03-match win streak
Win streak
9.05-match win streak
Fatigue & Travel
6.0
Minutes 14d
5.5
4.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
5.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Shang J.
Gomez E.[2]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Shang J.
Kovacevic A.[7]
3-67-656-4
Gomez E.[2]
Couacaud E.[8]
4-66-47-65
Quarter-finals
Kovacevic A.[7]
Quiroz R.
4-66-36-4
Shang J.
Safiullin R.[1]
0-66-47-5
Couacaud E.[8]
Nanda G.
3-66-16-2
Gomez E.[2]
Mejia N.
6-47-5
R16
Gomez E.[2]
Harrison R.
7-56-4
Nanda G.
Holt B.
6-716-46-2
Quiroz R.
Brouwer G.[4]
6-46-4
Shang J.
Kukushkin M.[5]
7-656-3
Safiullin R.[1]
Mukund S.
6-37-63
Couacaud E.[8]
Smith K.
6-26-4
Mejia N.
Kirchheimer S.
7-623-66-3
Kovacevic A.[7]
Harris B.
7-651-66-4
R32
Holt B.
Seelig K.
6-47-65
Safiullin R.[1]
Ayeni O.
6-36-4
Harrison R.
Diez S.
7-646-2
Mejia N.
Habib H.
6-36-4
Kirchheimer S.
Olivieri G.[6]
6-16-1
Nanda G.
Svrcina D.[3]
7-686-1
Harris B.
Mchugh A.
6-33-66-3
Quiroz R.
Chung Y.
6-25-76-1
Kukushkin M.[5]
Hurrion M.
6-07-67
Smith K.
Tu L.
6-756-06-3
Couacaud E.[8]
Zhu E.
6-26-1
Gomez E.[2]
Kingsley C.
6-43-67-5
Shang J.
Dostanic S.
6-04-66-3
Brouwer G.[4]
Brymer G.
6-46-1
Kovacevic A.[7]
Svajda Z.
7-56-1
Mukund S.
Torpegaard M.
3-66-04-1