Kyle Edmund vs Ryan Peniston — Surbiton CH Qualifying Round 2

Surbiton CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 2
GBR
Kyle Edmund
31 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWLWLLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 3 June 2024
grass
Ryan Peniston
GBR7
Ryan Peniston
#417ATP
1441ELO
1440Grass ELO
30 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLLWW
Edmund K.
7-5 6-3
Peniston R.
Edmund K.
762
Peniston R.
530

Kyle Edmund defeated Ryan Peniston 7-5 6-3 in the Surbiton CH qualifying round 2 on grass. The upset overturned the form book — Ryan Peniston came in defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

  • Match story: Kyle Edmund closed it out in two sets, 7–5 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Edmund K.serving83% hold

wins 65% of points on serve vs Peniston R.

Peniston R.serving77% hold

wins 62% of points on serve vs Edmund K.

Serve advantage — Edmund K.

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
Edmund K.Peniston R.
1st serve in·Slight edge
57%
62%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
73%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
50%
Service points won·Slight edge
65%
60%
Return points won·Even
40%
42%
Break points saved·Even
56%
57%
Aces / match·Clear edge
5.0
2.5
Double faults / match·Even
3.0
3.1

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (51 vs 76). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Edmund K.Peniston R.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
32
20
Break points saved·Dominant
92
60
Break points won·Even
22
25
Deciding sets·Slight edge
25
36
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
36
15

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Edmund K.
5.1
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Peniston R.
4.5
Heavy underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.7
Surface form
3.3
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
3.0
Surface transition
3.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Q2
Schoolkate T.[1]
Chidekh C.[11]
6-16-2
Bolt A.[9]
Jones B.
6-47-63
Huesler M.[2]
Wendelken H.
7-626-4
Jubb P.
Jasika O.[4]
6-46-4
Edmund K.
Peniston R.[7]
7-56-3
Brouwer G.[10]
Lajal M.[6]
6-756-46-2
Q1
Edmund K.
Tu L.[5]
6-17-64
Jubb P.
Broom C.[12]
6-26-4
Wendelken H.
Sweeny D.[8]
6-16-3
Bolt A.[9]
Jansen W.
7-636-2
Schoolkate T.[1]
Seggerman R.
6-46-3
Chidekh C.[11]
Mott B.
7-57-5
Huesler M.[2]
Mchugh A.
6-26-3
Jones B.
Polmans M.[3]
3-66-16-4
Jasika O.[4]
Stewart H.
3-66-46-4
Peniston R.[7]
Saville L.
6-36-1
Lajal M.[6]
Little D.
6-36-2
Brouwer G.[10]
Hussey G.
6-36-4