Brandon Holt vs Li Tu — Busan CH Quarter-final

Busan CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
USA
Brandon Holt
#657ATP
1537ELO
1507Hard ELO
28 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLLLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 8 May 2023
hard
AUS
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Holt B.
6-4 6-4
Tu L.
Holt B.
662
Tu L.
440

Brandon Holt defeated Li Tu 6-4 6-4 in the Busan CH quarter-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Li Tu came in ranked #464, defending last year's round of 32.

Key context

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

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Holt B.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving82% hold

wins 64% of points on serve vs Holt B.

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
Holt B.Tu L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
66%
61%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
68%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
51%
Service points won·Even
63%
64%
Return points won·Even
39%
37%
Break points saved·Even
60%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.8
6.2
Double faults / match·Dominant
1.0
2.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (189 vs 184). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Holt B.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
58
27
Break points saved·Even
85
82
Break points won·Clear edge
31
8
Deciding sets·Dominant
79
20
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
69
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Holt B.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Tu L.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
5.2+36 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.8Hard Elo 1471
5.1Overall Elo 1537
ELO gap
4.9Overall Elo 1488
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.9
Surface form
2.2
Fatigue & Travel
7.4
Minutes 14d
7.2
4.0
3-set count
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
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Final
Vukic A.[6]
Purcell M.[1]
6-41-0
Semi-finals
Purcell M.[1]
Diallo G.
6-47-5
Vukic A.[6]
Holt B.
7-646-1
Quarter-finals
Holt B.
Tu L.
6-46-4
Purcell M.[1]
Uchiyama Y.
6-47-5
Diallo G.
Thompson J.[3]
6-37-5
Vukic A.[6]
Eubanks C.[2]
6-747-636-4
R16
Purcell M.[1]
Hsu Y.
6-26-4
Diallo G.
Chung Y.
7-657-64
Thompson J.[3]
Donskoy E.
7-56-3
Eubanks C.[2]
Jung J.
6-46-3
Holt B.
Saville L.
6-36-3
Vukic A.[6]
Shimabukuro S.
7-616-4
Uchiyama Y.
Hijikata R.[5]
6-43-66-4
Tu L.
Celikbilek A.
6-47-65
R32
Jung J.
Hong S.
6-23-0
Purcell M.[1]
Mochizuki Y.
6-36-3
Hsu Y.
Tokuda R.
7-646-3
Tu L.
Yunchaokete B.
6-46-4
Shimabukuro S.
Moriya H.
6-726-27-5
Vukic A.[6]
Harris L.
7-656-3
Holt B.
Gomez E.[4]
6-26-2
Celikbilek A.
Uchida K.[7]
6-26-4
Thompson J.[3]
Masur D.
6-16-1
Hijikata R.[5]
Jasika O.
6-766-36-2
Uchiyama Y.
Chung H.
6-36-736-2
Eubanks C.[2]
Polmans M.
4-66-37-66
Saville L.
Berankis R.
7-636-3
Chung Y.
Wu T.
7-56-2
Donskoy E.
Shimizu Y.
7-53-66-0
Diallo G.
Nam J.
6-36-3