Irina Camelia Begu vs Ann Li — Palermo Quarter-final

Palermo · WTA · Quarter-final
Irina Camelia Begu
ROU
Irina Camelia Begu
#204WTA
1769ELO
1733Clay ELO
35 yrs · 181 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWWWLWLLW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 15 July 2024
clay
Ann Li
USA
Ann Li
#31WTA
1807ELO
1743Clay ELO
$718kYTD
$3.8MCAREER
26 yrs · 170 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWLWLWW
Begu I.
6-3 6-4
Li A.
Begu I.
662
Li A.
340

Irina Camelia Begu defeated Ann Li 6-3 6-4 in the Palermo quarter-final on clay. The upset overturned the form book — Ann Li came in ranked #31. Irina Camelia Begu extended the head-to-head to 2–1.

Key context

Head to head

1–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-03-05Indian WellsR128hardIrina Camelia Begu7-5 3-6 6-1
2021-10-18TenerifeQFhardAnn Li7-5 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Begu I.serving67% hold

wins 57% of points on serve vs Li A.

Li A.serving64% hold

wins 56% of points on serve vs Begu I.

Baseline battle — serve is shaky, expect plenty of breaks

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 clay

Begu I.Li A.
—
Serve
19
—
Return
19

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

Statistics

This season
Begu I.Li A.
1st serve in·Slight edge
66%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
62%
67%
2nd serve points won·Even
46%
46%
Service points won·Even
57%
58%
Return points won·Even
46%
44%
Break points saved·Even
54%
57%
Aces / match·Clear edge
1.8
4.0
Double faults / match·Clear edge
3.3
2.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (65 vs 114). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Begu I.Li A.
Clutch Rating·Slight edge
68
76
Break points saved·Dominant
58
83
Break points won·Even
88
87
Deciding sets·Slight edge
81
87
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
88
66

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Begu I.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Li A.
6.9
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
5.1Clay Elo 1733
Surface ELO
4.9+11 Clay Elo edge
4.5Overall Elo 1769
ELO gap
5.5Overall Elo 1807
5.0
H2H
5.0
6.3
Surface form
8.5
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
7.04-match win streak
Fatigue & Travel
9.3
Minutes 14d
9.0
Prev. match
5.8
Country comfort
3.0
Surface transition
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
Begu I.Li A.
Freshness·Even
98
97

Begu I.: 13 days rest · 1 match (14d) · Li A.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Slowlow bounce, long rallies
SlowFast
Weather
32°CClear
Wind 11 km/hHumidity 52%

Draw

Final
Zheng Q.[1]
Muchova K.[2]
6-44-66-2
Semi-finals
Muchova K.[2]
Begu I.
6-16-1
Zheng Q.[1]
Parry D.[4]
7-56-4
Quarter-finals
Muchova K.[2]
Sharma A.
7-657-66
Zheng Q.[1]
Cristian J.[7]
6-16-1
Begu I.
Li A.
6-36-4
Parry D.[4]
Paquet C.
7-51-66-4
R16
Muchova K.[2]
Noha Akugue N.
6-706-26-3
Paquet C.
Carle M.
6-36-1
Begu I.
Rus A.[5]
6-27-5
Cristian J.[7]
Bronzetti L.
6-36-2
Parry D.[4]
Teichmann J.
6-26-746-2
Sharma A.
Tomljanovic A.
6-43-66-1
Zheng Q.[1]
Martic P.
6-46-4
Li A.
Andreeva E.
6-34-66-4
R32
Andreeva E.
Semenistaja D.
6-16-2
Begu I.
Bassols Ribera M.
6-06-0
Carle M.
Maria T.[8]
5-76-16-1
Muchova K.[2]
Kawa K.
7-6145-1
Tomljanovic A.
Sherif M.
3-67-56-3
Sharma A.
Blinkova A.[6]
6-07-5
Martic P.
Arango E.
6-26-3
Cristian J.[7]
Riera J.
6-36-2
Rus A.[5]
Trevisan M.
6-756-46-2
Bronzetti L.
Jacquemot E.
7-53-66-3
Noha Akugue N.
Barthel M.
6-42-66-2
Zheng Q.[1]
Errani S.
6-36-2
Parry D.[4]
Gadecki O.
4-66-46-4
Paquet C.
Zheng S.
6-36-3
Li A.
Stearns P.[3]
3-67-676-2
Teichmann J.
Ristic M.
6-16-1