Li Tu vs Emilio Nava — Lexington CH Quarter-final

Lexington CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
AUS7
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 29 July 2024
hard
Emilio Nava
USA2
Emilio Nava
#91ATP
1704ELO
1621Hard ELO
$533kYTD
$2.1MCAREER
24 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWWWWWW
Tu L.
7-6 6-3
Nava E.
Tu L.
7762
Nava E.
6530

Li Tu defeated Emilio Nava 7-6 6-3 in the Lexington CH quarter-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Emilio Nava came in ranked #91.

Key context

  • Match story: Li Tu closed it out in two sets, 7–6 6–3.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Tu L.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Nava E.

Nava E.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Tu L.

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

Tu L.Nava E.
—
Serve
39
—
Return
21

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

Statistics

This season
Tu L.Nava E.
1st serve in·Even
62%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
64%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
61%
64%
Aces / match·Slight edge
6.7
7.7
Double faults / match·Even
2.8
3.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (124 vs 189). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Tu L.Nava E.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
27
52
Break points saved·Clear edge
82
94
Break points won·Slight edge
8
17
Deciding sets·Dominant
20
89
Tiebreaks·Dominant
64
23

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tu L.
5.4
Clear underdogUmpiry Score
Nava E.
6.1
Even matchUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
3.4Hard Elo 1471
Surface ELO
6.6+150 Hard Elo edge
2.9Overall Elo 1488
ELO gap
7.1Overall Elo 1704
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
2.5
Surface form
4.7
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
7.0
Minutes 14d
9.2
3-set count
7.0
9.0
Prev. match
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
Tu L.Nava E.
Freshness·
—
96

Nava E.: 14 days rest · 1 match (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Fonseca J.[6]
Tu L.[7]
6-16-4
Semi-finals
Fonseca J.[6]
Grenier H.[5]
6-37-5
Tu L.[7]
Wong C.[4]
6-26-3
Quarter-finals
Grenier H.[5]
Tien L.
2-66-47-67
Fonseca J.[6]
Diallo G.
6-26-2
Wong C.[4]
Braswell M.
6-47-63
Tu L.[7]
Nava E.[2]
7-656-3
R16
Braswell M.
Tomic B.[8]
W/O
Tien L.
Gea A.
4-67-676-0
Grenier H.[5]
Mayo A.
6-32-66-0
Diallo G.
Quinn E.
6-37-66
Fonseca J.[6]
Draxl L.
7-637-5
Wong C.[4]
Andrade A.
4-66-16-2
Tu L.[7]
Trotter J.
6-46-4
Nava E.[2]
Kumar O.
6-46-2
R32
Gea A.
Holt B.[9]
6-31-0
Mayo A.
Pinnington Jones J.
5-77-53-0
Grenier H.[5]
Mchugh A.
2-66-46-3
Andrade A.
Shimizu Y.
7-640-67-67
Tien L.
Noguchi R.
6-46-1
Diallo G.
Seggerman R.
7-633-66-1
Quinn E.
Pacheco Mendez R.
2-66-16-2
Draxl L.
Berankis R.
6-44-66-2
Fonseca J.[6]
Uchida K.
6-36-3
Tomic B.[8]
Kozlov S.
6-43-66-3
Braswell M.
Kuzuhara B.
7-646-3
Wong C.[4]
Soto M.
6-43-66-3
Tu L.[7]
Baadi T.
1-66-26-4
Trotter J.
Wu T.
6-36-4
Kumar O.
Broom C.
7-56-3
Nava E.[2]
Saville L.
6-36-2