Omar Jasika vs Li Tu — Brisbane 2 CH Quarter-final

Brisbane 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Quarter-final
AUS6
Omar Jasika
#528ATP
1296ELO
1272Hard ELO
29 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLWLLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 3 February 2025
hard
AUS4
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Jasika O.
2-6 7-5 6-2
Tu L.
Jasika O.
2762
Tu L.
6521

Omar Jasika defeated Li Tu 2-6 7-5 6-2 in the Brisbane 2 CH quarter-final on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Omar Jasika dropped the opening set before beating Li Tu 2–6 7–5 6–2.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Jasika O.serving76% hold

wins 61% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Jasika O.

Serve advantage — Tu L.

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
Jasika O.Tu L.
1st serve in·Slight edge
66%
60%
1st serve points won·Slight edge
63%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
49%
50%
Service points won·Slight edge
58%
65%
Return points won·Even
37%
36%
Break points saved·Even
58%
59%
Aces / match·Dominant
2.5
8.0
Double faults / match·Slight edge
2.7
3.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (64 vs 61). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Jasika O.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
0
27
Break points saved·Dominant
47
82
Break points won·Slight edge
13
8
Deciding sets·Slight edge
13
20
Tiebreaks·Dominant
1
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Jasika O.
5.6
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Tu L.
6.7
Slight advantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
2.6Hard Elo 1272
Surface ELO
7.4+199 Hard Elo edge
2.4Overall Elo 1296
ELO gap
7.6Overall Elo 1488
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
5.1
Surface form
4.3
7.03-match win streak
Win streak
0.0Lost last 3
Fatigue & Travel
4.9
Minutes 14d
9.1
7.0
3-set count
8.0
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.

Conditions

Court speed
Fastbig serves, short points
SlowFast
Final
Walton A.[1]
Kubler J.
7-667-64
Semi-finals
Kubler J.
Langmo C.
6-46-4
Walton A.[1]
Jasika O.[6]
6-26-4
Quarter-finals
Jasika O.[6]
Tu L.[4]
2-67-56-2
Langmo C.
Shimizu Y.[5]
6-46-756-3
Kubler J.
Mccabe J.[8]
7-616-1
Walton A.[1]
Ilagan A.
6-36-4
R16
Tu L.[4]
Delaney J.
6-06-776-4
Jasika O.[6]
Gengel M.
7-613-66-3
Kubler J.
Hsu Y.
6-26-1
Walton A.[1]
Moriya H.
6-36-4
Ilagan A.
Imamura M.
2-67-636-0
Mccabe J.[8]
Hulme M.
6-36-4
Langmo C.
Janvier M.
5-76-46-4
Shimizu Y.[5]
Ogura K.
6-22-66-1
R32
Delaney J.
Marinkov P.
7-653-67-65
Hulme M.
Zhou Y.
0-66-46-4
Ogura K.
Nakagawa N.
7-647-65
Moriya H.
Weber A.
6-46-2
Ilagan A.
Saitoh K.
7-56-2
Janvier M.
Bolt A.[3]
6-46-4
Kubler J.
Schoolkate T.[2]
6-43-66-3
Jasika O.[6]
Ellis B.
6-36-2
Hsu Y.
Bouzige M.
7-57-62
Shimizu Y.[5]
Matsuoka H.
6-33-66-3
Tu L.[4]
Shiraishi H.
6-16-1
Langmo C.
Sweeny D.
6-26-2
Walton A.[1]
Nanda G.
6-26-4
Imamura M.
Tomic B.[7]
6-23-66-2
Mccabe J.[8]
Bradshaw J.
6-36-1
Gengel M.
Broom C.
6-16-2