Martin Krumich vs Hanwen Li — Prague CH Qualifying Round 1

Prague CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
CZE9
Martin Krumich
#278ATP
1459ELO
1423Clay ELO
23 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WWLWLWWLWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 22 August 2022
clay
CHN
Hanwen Li
23 yrs · 180 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWLW
Krumich M.
6-3 6-2
Li H.
Krumich M.
662
Li H.
320

Martin Krumich defeated Hanwen Li 6-3 6-2 in the Prague CH qualifying round 1 on clay.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Krumich M.serving72% hold

wins 59% of points on serve vs Li H.

Li H.serving58% hold

wins 53% of points on serve vs Krumich M.

Serve advantage — Krumich M.

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
Krumich M.Li H.
1st serve in·Slight edge
59%
49%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
68%
2nd serve points won·Even
48%
46%
Service points won·Even
60%
57%
Return points won·Even
41%
37%
Break points saved·Clear edge
60%
47%
Aces / match·Even
3.9
4.2
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.9
3.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (122 vs 13). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Krumich M.
4.8
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Extended break: 42 days (−0.7)
Li H.
6.0
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.9
Surface form
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.8
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
7.0
Surface transition
6.0
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
Krumich M.Li H.
Freshness·
72
—

Krumich M.: 1 day rest · 3 matches, 69 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Q2
Tiurnev E.[10]
Kamke T.[3]
6-34-66-4
Nava E.[8]
Fayziev S.
6-36-1
Krutykh O.[5]
Paulson A.
6-45-76-4
Moro Canas A.
Bachinger M.[4]
6-46-3
Miedler L.[2]
Fanselow S.
6-46-3
Ionel N.[7]
Lamasine T.[1]
6-46-2
Rosol L.[2]
Yevseyev D.[11]
5-76-26-4
Michalski D.[6]
Kamke T.[7]
W/O
Gerch L.[12]
Uchida K.[5]
6-36-1
Tabur C.
Lamasine T.[8]
2-66-46-4
Oliel Y.[10]
Moeller M.
W/O
Donati M.
Purcell M.[1]
6-46-4
Domingues J.[1]
Lamasine T.[12]
6-26-1
Cuevas M.[6]
Forti F.[8]
6-43-66-3
Menendez Maceiras A.[5]
Jecan M.
6-26-4
Cornea V.
Paul J.[11]
6-26-1
Krumich M.[9]
Paulson A.[3]
7-57-5
Vrbensky M.[2]
Gill F.[10]
6-06-4
Q1
Nava E.[8]
Nicod J.
7-53-66-4
Kamke T.[3]
Gengel M.
6-16-4
Lamasine T.[1]
Heller P.
6-27-5
Ionel N.[7]
Petr V.
6-06-4
Moro Canas A.
Moeller M.[9]
6-16-4
Fayziev S.
Kirkin E.[6]
6-46-3
Fanselow S.
Erler A.[12]
6-17-5
Miedler L.[2]
Molleker R.
7-57-63
Nava E.
Nicod J.
7-53-66-4
Paulson A.
Rosenkranz M.[11]
6-04-66-4
Krutykh O.[5]
Donald M.
6-36-4
Bachinger M.[4]
Siniakov D.
6-46-3
Tiurnev E.[10]
Poljak D.
6-36-3
Donati M.
Bachinger M.[9]
3-67-56-1
Kamke T.[7]
Gengel M.
6-41-67-5
Michalski D.[6]
Fayziev S.
5-76-26-1
Lamasine T.[8]
Mensik J.
6-00-0
Gerch L.[12]
Virtanen O.
5-76-36-1
Uchida K.[5]
Donald M.
6-26-0
Tabur C.
Soeda G.[4]
6-26-4
Oliel Y.[10]
De Schepper K.
6-35-77-5
Moeller M.
Sels J.[3]
1-66-46-1
Yevseyev D.[11]
Velik L.
6-36-1
Rosol L.[2]
Vrbensky M.
7-56-3
Purcell M.[1]
Damm M.
6-26-4
Forti F.[8]
Nicod J.
6-46-3
Jecan M.
Palosi S.[7]
6-36-4
Vrbensky M.[2]
Havlicek M.
6-15-76-2
Krumich M.[9]
Li H.
6-36-2
Lamasine T.[12]
Karol M.
6-26-3
Paulson A.[3]
Cuenin S.
6-16-3
Cuevas M.[6]
Jenicek J.
7-54-66-1
Forti F.
Nicod J.
6-46-3
Menendez Maceiras A.[5]
Donald M.
6-46-0
Paul J.[11]
Siniakov D.
6-47-5
Cornea V.
Mpetshi Perricard G.[4]
6-734-0
Gill F.[10]
Nejedly P.
7-56-3