Li Tu vs Eliot Spizzirri — Birmingham CH Round of 32

Birmingham CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 32
AUS
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1516Grass ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
2 — 0
Sets
Monday, 2 June 2025
grass
Eliot Spizzirri
USA
Eliot Spizzirri
#105ATP
1796ELO
1630Grass ELO
$385kYTD
$1.2MCAREER
24 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLWLWWWWLW
Tu L.
6-3 6-3
Spizzirri E.
Tu L.
662
Spizzirri E.
330

Li Tu defeated Eliot Spizzirri 6-3 6-3 in the Birmingham CH round of 32 on grass. The upset overturned the form book — Eliot Spizzirri came in ranked #105. Li Tu extended the head-to-head to 2–1.

Key context

Head to head

1–1
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2025-06-09StuttgartQ1grassLi Tu6-4 7-5
2024-07-15NewportR32grassEliot Spizzirri6-1 7-6(4)

Serve vs return

This season
Tu L.serving87% hold

wins 68% of points on serve vs Spizzirri E.

Spizzirri E.serving91% hold

wins 71% 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

Statistics

This season
Tu L.Spizzirri E.
1st serve in·Slight edge
60%
68%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
71%
2nd serve points won·Even
50%
51%
Service points won·Even
65%
65%
Return points won·Even
36%
39%
Break points saved·Even
59%
59%
Aces / match·Dominant
8.0
4.8
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.4
1.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (61 vs 98). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Tu L.Spizzirri E.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
27
68
Break points saved·Even
82
81
Break points won·Dominant
8
34
Deciding sets·Dominant
20
95
Tiebreaks·Dominant
64
89

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tu L.
3.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Spizzirri E.
5.9
Even matchUmpiry ScorePartial · surface data limited
  • Surface jump clay↔grass (−0.8)
Form & Matchup
3.7Grass Elo 1516
Surface ELO
6.3+114 Grass Elo edge
1.5Overall Elo 1488
ELO gap
8.5Overall Elo 1796
0.0
H2H
10.0
5.3
Surface form
0.0Lost last 4
Win streak
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