Alex Bolt vs Li Tu — Birmingham CH Round of 16

Birmingham CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Alex Bolt
AUS
Alex Bolt
#166ATP
1588ELO
1569Grass ELO
$125kYTD
$2.2MCAREER
33 yrs · 183 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLLWLWLL
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 June 2025
grass
AUS
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1516Grass ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
Bolt A.
6-2 6-3
Tu L.
Bolt A.
662
Tu L.
230

Alex Bolt defeated Li Tu 6-2 6-3 in the Birmingham CH round of 16 on grass.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Bolt A.serving91% hold

wins 71% of points on serve vs Tu L.

Tu L.serving90% hold

wins 70% of points on serve vs Bolt A.

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
Bolt A.Tu L.
1st serve in·Even
64%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
72%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
53%
50%
Service points won·Even
65%
65%
Return points won·Even
37%
36%
Break points saved·Slight edge
65%
59%
Aces / match·Even
7.5
8.1
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.8
3.3

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (86 vs 61). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Bolt A.Tu L.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
44
27
Break points saved·Slight edge
93
82
Break points won·Even
7
8
Deciding sets·Dominant
46
20
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
83
64

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Bolt A.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Tu L.
4.2
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
5.7+53 Grass Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.3Grass Elo 1516
6.0Overall Elo 1588
ELO gap
4.0Overall Elo 1488
10.0No prior meetings
H2H
0.0
8.1
Surface form
5.3
0.0
Win streak
0.0Lost last 4
Fatigue & Travel
7.0
3-set count
7.0
3.0
Surface transition
3.0
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
Virtanen O.
Smith C.
6-46-4
Semi-finals
Smith C.
Hijikata R.[3]
6-36-4
Virtanen O.
Holt B.
6-44-67-63
Quarter-finals
Smith C.
Harris L.
6-36-736-4
Virtanen O.
Wong C.
6-27-5
Holt B.
Mannarino A.
6-46-3
Hijikata R.[3]
Bolt A.
7-626-4
R16
Smith C.
Moreno De Alboran N.
6-30-1
Mannarino A.
Jarry N.
7-666-3
Wong C.
Svajda Z.
4-66-36-2
Hijikata R.[3]
Watanuki Y.
6-16-3
Bolt A.
Tu L.
6-26-3
Virtanen O.
Huesler M.
6-36-766-1
Harris L.
Landaluce M.
6-46-2
Holt B.
Cassone M.
6-26-2
R32
Mannarino A.
Nishioka Y.[2]
7-613-2
Cassone M.
Evans D.
7-657-65
Harris L.
Clarke J.
6-43-66-4
Moreno De Alboran N.
Oconnell C.[5]
6-46-3
Bolt A.
Mcdonald M.[8]
6-47-63
Svajda Z.
Majchrzak K.[7]
6-47-63
Huesler M.
Mayot H.
7-616-4
Holt B.
Duckworth J.[6]
6-27-5
Watanuki Y.
Blockx A.
6-46-4
Wong C.
Monday J.
6-15-76-3
Virtanen O.
Vukic A.[4]
7-646-3
Tu L.
Spizzirri E.
6-36-3
Hijikata R.[3]
Harris B.
6-13-66-4
Landaluce M.
Bellucci M.[1]
4-66-47-65
Smith C.
Uchiyama Y.
6-26-736-4
Jarry N.
Schoolkate T.
6-786-46-4