Madison Keys vs Coco Gauff — Eastbourne Semi-final

Eastbourne · WTA · Semi-final
Madison Keys
USA2
Madison Keys
#23WTA
1987ELO
1843Grass ELO
$1.1MYTD
$24MCAREER
31 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWWWWL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 26 June 2023
grass
Coco Gauff
USA5
Coco Gauff
#4WTA
2071ELO
1823Grass ELO
$2.9MYTD
$33MCAREER
22 yrs · 175 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWWLLWW
Keys M.
6-3 6-3
Gauff C.
Keys M.
662
Gauff C.
330

Madison Keys defeated Coco Gauff 6-3 6-3 in the Eastbourne semi-final on grass. The upset overturned the form book — Coco Gauff came in ranked #4, leading the head-to-head 3–2, but Madison Keys had been the form player, winning 6 of their last 7 on grass. Madison Keys narrowed the head-to-head to 3–3.

Key context

Head to head

2–3
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-05-26Roland GarrosQFclayCoco Gauff6-7(6) 6-4 6-1
2024-04-22MadridR16clayMadison Keys7-6(4) 4-6 6-4
2023-02-20DubaiQFhardCoco Gauff6-2 7-5
2022-08-29US OpenR32hardCoco Gauff6-2 6-3
2022-01-10Adelaide 2SFhardMadison Keys3-6 6-2 7-5
View full head-to-head →

Serve vs return

This season
Keys M.serving77% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Gauff C.

Gauff C.serving82% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Keys M.

Serve advantage — Gauff C.

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
Keys M.Gauff C.
1st serve in·Slight edge
67%
60%
1st serve points won·Even
67%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
47%
44%
Service points won·Even
60%
59%
Return points won·Even
44%
48%
Break points saved·Even
60%
56%
Aces / match·Slight edge
4.0
3.4
Double faults / match·Dominant
2.7
5.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (153 vs 200). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Keys M.Gauff C.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
94
99
Break points saved·Even
96
96
Break points won·Slight edge
90
100
Deciding sets·Even
97
100
Tiebreaks·Even
96
99

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Keys M.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 28 days (−0.3)
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Gauff C.
7.3
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.1+20 Grass Elo edge
Surface ELO
5.9Grass Elo 1823
3.4Overall Elo 1987
ELO gap
6.6Overall Elo 2071
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.2
Surface form
6.0
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
8.5
7.0
Prev. match
9.0
6.3
Country comfort
3.0
Surface transition
Context
6.0
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
Keys M.Gauff C.
Freshness·Clear edge
84
65

Keys M.: 7 days rest · 1 match, 23 games (7d) · Gauff C.: 4 days rest · 2 matches, 56 games (7d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Weather
20°CPartly cloudy
Wind 26 km/hHumidity 53%

Draw

Final
Keys M.[2]
Kasatkina D.[9]
6-27-613
Semi-finals
Keys M.[2]
Gauff C.[5]
6-36-3
Kasatkina D.[9]
Giorgi C.
6-27-5
Quarter-finals
Giorgi C.
Ostapenko J.[3]
7-68
Kasatkina D.[9]
Garcia C.[2]
6-22-1
Gauff C.[5]
Pegula J.[3]
6-36-3
Keys M.[2]
Martic P.
6-46-1
R16
Keys M.[2]
Wang X.
6-27-63
Martic P.
Haddad Maia B.[8]
6-43-2
Ostapenko J.[3]
Dart H.
6-36-4
Giorgi C.
Jabeur O.[4]
6-36-2
Kasatkina D.[9]
Pliskova K.
3-66-36-3
Garcia C.[2]
Bogdan A.
6-36-4
Gauff C.[5]
Burrage J.
6-16-1
Pegula J.[3]
Osorio C.[6]
6-21-66-3
R32
Keys M.[2]
Martincova T.
7-646-4
Dart H.
Zhang S.
7-56-756-1
Pliskova K.
Mertens E.
6-736-33-0
Jabeur O.[4]
Paolini J.[1]
6-36-2
Ostapenko J.[3]
Strycova B.
6-46-3
Gauff C.[5]
Pera B.
6-36-2
Bogdan A.
Cirstea S.
6-32-66-3
Osorio C.[6]
Rogers S.
6-46-4
Wang X.
Marino R.
6-46-2
Haddad Maia B.[8]
Bouzkova M.
3-66-37-63
Pegula J.[3]
Zheng Q.
6-36-4
Giorgi C.
Watson H.
6-36-4
Kasatkina D.[9]
Kalinina A.
6-36-1
Burrage J.
Davis L.
4-66-46-3
Martic P.
Boulter K.
6-47-5
Garcia C.[2]
Brengle M.
6-17-5