Seong Chan Hong vs Toby Alex Kodat — Rome GA CH Quarter-final

Rome GA CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
KOR8
Seong Chan Hong
29 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLWLWL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 20 February 2023
hard
USA
Toby Alex Kodat
23 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWWWLWWW
Hong S.
4-6 6-3 6-4
Kodat T.
Hong S.
4662
Kodat T.
6341

Seong Chan Hong defeated Toby Alex Kodat 4-6 6-3 6-4 in the Rome GA CH quarter-final on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Hong S.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Kodat T.

Kodat T.serving74% hold

wins 60% of points on serve vs Hong S.

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
Hong S.Kodat T.
1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
68%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
49%
Service points won·Even
61%
60%
Return points won·Even
39%
40%
Break points saved·Even
60%
57%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.2
3.4
Double faults / match·Even
2.1
2.2

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (127 vs 87). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Hong S.Kodat T.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
52
40
Break points saved·Dominant
77
40
Break points won·Slight edge
30
24
Deciding sets·Clear edge
65
89
Tiebreaks·
80
—

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Hong S.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Kodat T.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.9
Surface form
2.8
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
8.0
Minutes 14d
8.0
Prev. match
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
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Thompson J.[1]
Michelsen A.
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Thompson J.[1]
Svajda Z.
7-637-65
Michelsen A.
Hong S.[8]
4-67-56-1
Quarter-finals
Hong S.[8]
Kodat T.
4-66-36-4
Michelsen A.
Leshem E.
7-56-3
Svajda Z.
Ejupovic E.
6-13-66-3
Thompson J.[1]
Gray A.
6-46-2
Hong S.
Kodat T.
4-66-36-4
R16
Ejupovic E.
Harrison R.
3-67-656-2
Michelsen A.
Moraing M.
6-743-1
Svajda Z.
Vukic A.[3]
6-36-3
Kodat T.
Shimabukuro S.
6-43-67-5
Gray A.
Kypson P.
7-636-3
Thompson J.[1]
Squire H.
6-46-1
Hong S.[8]
Decamps G.
6-16-0
Leshem E.
Ponwith N.
6-36-2
Kodat T.
Shimabukuro S.
6-43-67-5
R32
Ejupovic E.
Sandgren T.[6]
6-43-2
Kodat T.
Couacaud E.[4]
6-46-3
Vukic A.[3]
Blanch U.
6-33-66-1
Moraing M.
Harrison C.
1-66-46-3
Svajda Z.
Wong C.
6-36-1
Squire H.
Rincon D.
6-46-2
Thompson J.[1]
Dougaz A.
6-36-4
Michelsen A.
Koepfer D.[7]
6-36-1
Ponwith N.
Hijikata R.[2]
6-46-756-3
Kypson P.
Smith K.
6-17-64
Shimabukuro S.
Fanselow S.
2-66-36-3
Harrison R.
Marchenko I.
6-33-66-3
Gray A.
Galarneau A.[5]
6-46-4
Leshem E.
Mochizuki S.
6-746-36-2
Decamps G.
Cukierman D.
6-16-2
Kodat T.
Couacaud E.
6-46-3