Christopher Oconnell vs Luke Saville — Shanghai CH Round of 32

Shanghai CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
AUS1
Christopher Oconnell
1673ELO
1657Hard ELO
32 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 4 September 2023
hard
AUS
Luke Saville
32 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLLLLLW
Oconnell C.
6-4 6-0
Saville L.
Oconnell C.
662
Saville L.
400

Christopher Oconnell defeated Luke Saville 6-4 6-0 in the Shanghai CH round of 32 on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Oconnell C.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Saville L.

Saville L.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Oconnell C.

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

Serve & return on hard

Oconnell C.Saville L.
20
Serve
—
32
Return
—

Per-surface Serve / Return Rating (0–100, percentile within the hard field, opponent-adjusted over 52 weeks). About

Statistics

This season
Oconnell C.Saville L.
1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
69%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
50%
Service points won·Even
64%
62%
Return points won·Even
35%
36%
Break points saved·Even
63%
62%
Aces / match·Dominant
7.1
3.4
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.7
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 61). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Oconnell C.Saville L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
49
19
Break points saved·Dominant
98
69
Break points won·Clear edge
22
10
Deciding sets·Slight edge
38
29
Tiebreaks·Dominant
93
30

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Oconnell C.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Saville L.
6.1
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
3.0
Surface form
5.3
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.4
3-set count
7.0
6.0
Prev. match
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Oconnell C.[1]
Watanuki Y.[2]
6-37-5
Semi-finals
Oconnell C.[1]
Tu L.
6-26-4
Watanuki Y.[2]
Shang J.[4]
6-46-2
Quarter-finals
Shang J.[4]
Giustino L.
6-16-4
Oconnell C.[1]
Bai Y.
6-06-2
Watanuki Y.[2]
Ly N.
6-26-0
Tu L.
Bellier A.
7-666-2
R16
Oconnell C.[1]
Uchiyama Y.
7-634-1
Tu L.
Peliwo F.
7-656-2
Watanuki Y.[2]
Haliak M.
6-16-1
Ly N.
Wu T.[5]
3-66-16-2
Giustino L.
Yunchaokete B.[6]
6-16-4
Bellier A.
Atmane T.[7]
7-653-66-4
Bai Y.
Palan D.
6-36-2
Shang J.[4]
Sweeny D.
6-46-3
R32
Watanuki Y.[2]
Bolt A.
6-46-0
Bai Y.
Mu T.
6-34-67-5
Wu T.[5]
Sun F.
7-653-66-2
Bellier A.
Kadhe A.
6-47-5
Giustino L.
Moriya H.
6-16-2
Yunchaokete B.[6]
Te R.
6-26-4
Atmane T.[7]
Jasika O.
6-37-61
Tu L.
Sekulic P.
6-16-0
Palan D.
Noguchi R.[8]
6-26-4
Uchiyama Y.
Liu H.
6-17-64
Oconnell C.[1]
Saville L.
6-46-0
Haliak M.
Ayeni O.
6-23-66-3
Sweeny D.
Mukund S.
6-36-4
Peliwo F.
Polmans M.[3]
6-16-3
Shang J.[4]
Strombachs R.
6-47-64
Ly N.
Chappell N.
5-76-46-0