James Duckworth vs Li Tu — Shenzhen CH Quarter-final

Shenzhen CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
James Duckworth
AUS1
James Duckworth
#74ATP
1628ELO
1592Hard ELO
$485kYTD
$5.4MCAREER
34 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLLLWLWLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 16 October 2023
hard
AUS5
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Duckworth J.
6-1 6-1
Tu L.
Duckworth J.
662
Tu L.
110

James Duckworth defeated Li Tu 6-1 6-1 in the Shenzhen CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — James Duckworth came in ranked #74. James Duckworth claimed a first win over Li Tu in four meetings, narrowing the head-to-head to 3–1.

Key context

Head to head

0–3
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-08-07Cincinnati MastersQ1hardLi Tu7-6(4) 6-4
2025-03-05Indian Wells MastersQ2hardLi Tu6-4 6-2
2025-01-06AdelaideR32hardLi Tu6-1 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Duckworth J.serving89% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Duckworth 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

Serve & return on hard

Duckworth J.Tu L.
25
Serve
—
13
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Duckworth J.Tu L.
1st serve in·Even
58%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
76%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
55%
51%
Service points won·Even
67%
64%
Return points won·Even
36%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
66%
60%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.3
6.2
Double faults / match·Even
2.6
2.7

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (200 vs 184). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Duckworth J.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
54
27
Break points saved·Clear edge
97
82
Break points won·Even
4
8
Deciding sets·Dominant
78
20
Tiebreaks·Slight edge
72
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Duckworth J.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Tu L.
5.8
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
6.4+121 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.6Hard Elo 1471
6.5Overall Elo 1628
ELO gap
3.5Overall Elo 1488
0.0
H2H
10.0
6.1
Surface form
4.4
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
4.6
Minutes 14d
5.9
4.0
3-set count
0.0
9.0
Prev. match
7.0
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.

Freshness

Recent load
Duckworth J.Tu L.
Freshness·
91
—

Duckworth J.: 12 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Kovacevic A.[6]
Borges N.[3]
7-647-65
Duckworth J.[1]
Wong C.
6-06-1
Semi-finals
Kovacevic A.[6]
Cachin P.[2]
6-47-67
Borges N.[3]
Gerasimov E.
6-26-1
Wong C.
Kovacevic A.[2]
W/O
Duckworth J.[1]
Yunchaokete B.[4]
6-16-2
Quarter-finals
Cachin P.[2]
Jung J.
6-36-4
Kovacevic A.[6]
Yevseyev D.
6-26-4
Gerasimov E.
Zhukayev B.
6-746-26-3
Borges N.[3]
Hsu Y.[8]
7-606-0
Kovacevic A.[2]
Giustino L.
6-33-66-3
Wong C.
Huang T.
4-67-56-3
Yunchaokete B.[4]
Bai Y.
6-36-2
Duckworth J.[1]
Tu L.[5]
6-16-1
R16
Cachin P.[2]
Wu T.
7-656-737-66
Yevseyev D.
Cui J.
6-46-0
Zhukayev B.
Kokkinakis T.[1]
6-36-4
Kovacevic A.[6]
Kachmazov A.
6-16-4
Gerasimov E.
Atmane T.[7]
7-646-3
Borges N.[3]
Yunchaokete B.
6-36-4
Jung J.
Duckworth J.[5]
3-67-56-2
Hsu Y.[8]
Tseng C.
6-36-4
Huang T.
Gerasimov E.
6-36-2
Duckworth J.[1]
Li Z.
7-646-4
Kovacevic A.[2]
Zhukayev B.
6-46-716-0
Giustino L.
Sinclair C.
6-36-4
Tu L.[5]
Palan D.
6-33-66-2
Wong C.
Atmane T.[3]
3-66-37-5
Bai Y.
Diez S.[8]
3-66-16-4
Yunchaokete B.[4]
Kachmazov A.
6-36-4
R32
Yunchaokete B.
Mccabe J.
3-66-32-0
Kokkinakis T.[1]
Sinclair C.
6-23-66-3
Jung J.
Donskoy E.
6-42-66-4
Borges N.[3]
Diez S.
7-56-2
Cachin P.[2]
Bai Y.
6-46-3
Duckworth J.[5]
Uchida K.
6-07-62
Yevseyev D.
Fognini F.[4]
6-47-66
Kachmazov A.
Tang S.
6-36-4
Kovacevic A.[6]
Sekulic P.
6-16-4
Hsu Y.[8]
Te R.
6-26-1
Tseng C.
Saville L.
6-27-5
Atmane T.[7]
Giustino L.
7-646-3
Gerasimov E.
Tu L.
4-66-46-4
Zhukayev B.
Li Z.
6-46-4
Cui J.
Sun Q.
6-36-3
Wu T.
Palan D.
6-47-64
Kovacevic A.[2]
Chen C.
6-36-1
Kachmazov A.
Sun F.
6-37-67
Diez S.[8]
Ly N.
6-46-1
Wong C.
Xiao L.
6-37-64
Zhukayev B.
Wang X.
6-36-4
Giustino L.
Te R.
6-46-3
Atmane T.[3]
Haliak M.
6-16-4
Huang T.
Lock B.
7-56-4
Gerasimov E.
Yevseyev D.[7]
6-26-2
Bai Y.
Weber A.
6-46-727-63
Tu L.[5]
Statham J.
7-56-3
Palan D.
Mo Y.
6-36-3
Li Z.
Trongcharoenchaikul W.
6-37-60
Duckworth J.[1]
Takahashi Y.
6-36-2
Yunchaokete B.[4]
Saville L.
6-36-3
Sinclair C.
Donskoy E.[6]
2-66-36-4