Kyle Edmund vs Li Tu — Surbiton CH Qualifying Round 1

Surbiton CH · CHALLENGER · Qualifying Round 1
GBR
Kyle Edmund
31 yrs · 188 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWWWLWLLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 3 June 2024
grass
AUS5
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1516Grass ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Edmund K.
6-1 7-6
Tu L.
Edmund K.
6772
Tu L.
1640

Kyle Edmund defeated Li Tu 6-1 7-6 in the Surbiton CH qualifying round 1 on grass.

Key context

  • Match story: Kyle Edmund came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 6–1 7–6.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Edmund K.serving88% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving84% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Edmund K.

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

Statistics

This season
Edmund K.Tu L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
57%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
40%
37%
Break points saved·Slight edge
55%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
4.9
6.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
3.1
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (51 vs 124). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Edmund K.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
32
27
Break points saved·Slight edge
92
82
Break points won·Clear edge
22
8
Deciding sets·Slight edge
25
20
Tiebreaks·Dominant
36
64

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)
Tu L.
5.1
Clear underdogUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.7
Surface form
6.5
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