Juncheng Shang vs Emilio Gomez — Ilkley CH Round of 32

Ilkley CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
CHN
Juncheng Shang
#274ATP
1746ELO
1651Grass ELO
21 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLWWLWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 19 June 2023
grass
ECU
Emilio Gomez
34 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWLLWLLW
Shang J.
6-3 7-6
Gomez E.
Shang J.
6772
Gomez E.
3620

Juncheng Shang defeated Emilio Gomez 6-3 7-6 in the Ilkley CH round of 32 on grass. 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

Head to head

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

Serve vs return

This season
Shang J.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Gomez E.

Gomez E.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Shang J.

Serve-dominated — both hold easily, expect tiebreaks

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
Shang J.Gomez E.
1st serve in·Even
63%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
71%
67%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
53%
46%
Service points won·Slight edge
64%
59%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
64%
58%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.1
3.1
Double faults / match·Clear edge
2.4
3.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (143 vs 55). 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.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Gomez E.
4.2
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.3
Surface form
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
3.8
Minutes 14d
0.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
Surface transition
3.0
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
Kubler J.[4]
Ofner S.[3]
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Ofner S.[3]
Piros Z.
6-36-0
Kubler J.[4]
Cazaux A.
4-66-36-1
Quarter-finals
Cazaux A.
Shimabukuro S.
6-11-0
Piros Z.
Broom C.
6-736-37-62
Ofner S.[3]
Kudla D.
6-26-2
Kubler J.[4]
Shang J.
6-36-4
R16
Broom C.
Brancaccio R.
6-16-4
Piros Z.
Bolt A.
6-41-66-3
Shang J.
Goffin D.
6-16-716-4
Cazaux A.
Tirante T.
6-13-1
Shimabukuro S.
Hijikata R.
3-66-46-3
Kudla D.
Bergs Z.
6-27-5
Ofner S.[3]
Virtanen O.
6-41-66-4
Kubler J.[4]
Bellucci M.
4-66-36-4
R32
Goffin D.
Stricker D.[6]
7-51-3
Broom C.
Brouwer G.
7-656-2
Brancaccio R.
Monday J.
6-36-3
Bolt A.
Samuel T.
2-67-667-5
Piros Z.
Kovacevic A.[7]
6-796-37-67
Ofner S.[3]
Lokoli L.
6-36-2
Bergs Z.
Rodionov J.[5]
7-614-66-1
Bellucci M.
Klein L.
4-66-46-4
Kubler J.[4]
Ritschard A.
6-36-736-3
Cazaux A.
Diallo G.
6-37-61
Tirante T.
Borges N.[1]
4-66-36-4
Kudla D.
Medjedovic H.
6-37-65
Shimabukuro S.
Wendelken H.
6-26-726-2
Hijikata R.
Watanuki Y.[8]
7-687-5
Shang J.
Gomez E.
6-37-62
Virtanen O.
Gombos N.
7-627-5