Christopher Oconnell vs Li Tu — Shanghai CH Semi-final

Shanghai CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
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
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Oconnell C.
6-2 6-4
Tu L.
Oconnell C.
662
Tu L.
240

Christopher Oconnell defeated Li Tu 6-2 6-4 in the Shanghai CH semi-final on hard.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Oconnell C.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving88% hold

wins 68% 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.Tu 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.Tu L.
1st serve in·Even
61%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
35%
37%
Break points saved·Even
63%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.1
6.2
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.7
2.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (199 vs 184). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Oconnell C.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
49
27
Break points saved·Clear edge
98
82
Break points won·Clear edge
22
8
Deciding sets·Clear edge
38
20
Tiebreaks·Dominant
93
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Oconnell C.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Tu L.
6.2
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.0+186 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.0Hard Elo 1471
6.7Overall Elo 1673
ELO gap
3.3Overall Elo 1488
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
3.0
Surface form
5.1
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
Minutes 14d
7.7
6.0
Prev. match
9.0
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