Coleman Wong vs Li Tu — Lincoln CH Quarter-final

Lincoln CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
HKG
Coleman Wong
#111ATP
1602ELO
1593Hard ELO
$287kYTD
$1.2MCAREER
22 yrs · 191 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
WLLLLWLWLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 5 August 2024
hard
AUS
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Wong C.
7-5 6-1
Tu L.
Wong C.
762
Tu L.
510

Coleman Wong defeated Li Tu 7-5 6-1 in the Lincoln CH quarter-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Coleman Wong came in ranked #111.

Key context

  • Match story: Coleman Wong came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 7–5 6–1.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Wong C.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Wong C.

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

Wong C.Tu L.
37
Serve
—
34
Return
—

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

Statistics

This season
Wong C.Tu L.
1st serve in·Even
61%
62%
1st serve points won·Even
73%
73%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
64%
65%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
61%
61%
Aces / match·Clear edge
8.4
6.7
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.2
2.8

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (177 vs 124). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Wong C.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
43
27
Break points saved·Slight edge
91
82
Break points won·Even
5
8
Deciding sets·Clear edge
43
20
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
88
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Wong C.
6.4
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Tu L.
6.3
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
7.0+122 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
3.0Hard Elo 1471
7.0Overall Elo 1602
ELO gap
3.0Overall Elo 1488
0.0No prior meetings
H2H
10.0
6.4
Surface form
6.0
0.0
Win streak
Fatigue & Travel
5.4
Minutes 14d
5.2
4.0
3-set count
7.0
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
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
Wong C.Tu L.
Freshness·
100
—

Wong C.: 21 days rest. Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Fearnley J.
Wong C.
6-46-2
Semi-finals
Fearnley J.
Yunchaokete B.[5]
0-66-07-63
Wong C.
Basavareddy N.
6-757-636-0
Quarter-finals
Fearnley J.
Mayo A.
5-76-46-3
Yunchaokete B.[5]
Schoolkate T.
7-636-2
Basavareddy N.
Jubb P.
7-56-3
Wong C.
Tu L.
7-56-1
R16
Mayo A.
Smith C.
6-37-63
Tu L.
Baris O.
6-35-76-3
Fearnley J.
Eubanks C.[1]
7-54-66-2
Schoolkate T.
Mayot H.[3]
6-16-4
Yunchaokete B.[5]
Zhukayev B.
6-36-2
Basavareddy N.
Williams C.
6-36-0
Jubb P.
Van Assche L.[4]
6-36-1
Wong C.
Pinnington Jones J.
1-66-26-4
R32
Baris O.
Takahashi Y.
1-0
Fearnley J.
Brouwer G.
6-16-1
Smith C.
Lapadat J.
6-06-0
Pinnington Jones J.
Nava E.[6]
6-46-2
Eubanks C.[1]
Spizzirri E.
7-636-4
Mayo A.
Gojo B.[8]
7-656-1
Mayot H.[3]
Krueger M.
6-36-4
Schoolkate T.
Boyer T.
7-57-60
Zhukayev B.
Shepp A.
6-46-2
Yunchaokete B.[5]
Mochizuki S.
6-46-2
Williams C.
Yevseyev D.[7]
7-637-5
Basavareddy N.
Kozlov S.
2-66-46-2
Jubb P.
Torres Espinosa J.
6-16-4
Van Assche L.[4]
Langmo C.
6-16-3
Wong C.
Quinn E.
6-16-3
Tu L.
Matsuda R.
6-26-4