Lloyd Harris vs Michael Geerts — Soma Bay CH Round of 16

Soma Bay CH · CHALLENGER · Round of 16
Lloyd Harris
RSA5
Lloyd Harris
#160ATP
1665ELO
1640Hard ELO
$130kYTD
$4.7MCAREER
29 yrs · 193 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWLLWWLL
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 19 January 2026
hard
Michael Geerts
BEL
Michael Geerts
#333ATP
1400ELO
1383Hard ELO
31 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLLWLWL
Harris L.
6-1 6-7 6-1
Geerts M.
Harris L.
66562
Geerts M.
17711

Lloyd Harris defeated Michael Geerts 6-1 6-7 6-1 in the Soma Bay CH round of 16 on hard.

Key context

  • Match story: Lloyd Harris came through a tight passage before pulling clear — 6–1 6–7 6–1.

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Harris L.serving88% hold

wins 69% of points on serve vs Geerts M.

Geerts M.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Harris 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
Harris L.Geerts M.
1st serve in·Slight edge
66%
57%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
74%
2nd serve points won·Even
51%
54%
Service points won·Even
66%
65%
Return points won·Even
38%
36%
Break points saved·Even
66%
63%
Aces / match·Dominant
9.1
5.3
Double faults / match·Clear edge
1.2
2.6

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (19 vs 18). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Harris L.Geerts M.
Clutch Rating·Dominant
57
9
Break points saved·Clear edge
95
82
Break points won·Clear edge
24
3
Deciding sets·Dominant
94
8
Tiebreaks·Clear edge
25
2

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Harris L.
7.0
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Geerts M.
5.7
Slight disadvantageUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
8.3+257 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
1.7Hard Elo 1383
8.4Overall Elo 1665
ELO gap
1.6Overall Elo 1400
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
4.5
Surface form
7.2
0.0Lost last 2
Win streak
0.0
Fatigue & Travel
8.9
Minutes 14d
3.3
3-set count
4.0
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
Medium-slowfavours grinders
SlowFast
Final
Harris L.[5]
Pinnington Jones J.[3]
6-15-2
Semi-finals
Harris L.[5]
Butvilas E.
6-727-56-3
Pinnington Jones J.[3]
Gojo B.
7-656-1
Quarter-finals
Pinnington Jones J.[3]
Zahraj P.
6-16-2
Gojo B.
Neumayer L.[7]
5-77-56-3
Harris L.[5]
Mrva M.
6-35-76-2
Butvilas E.
Pacheco Mendez R.[8]
6-16-4
R16
Butvilas E.
Ajdukovic D.
6-17-66
Mrva M.
Blancaneaux G.
6-26-4
Harris L.[5]
Geerts M.
6-16-756-1
Zahraj P.
Coppejans K.
7-646-4
Pinnington Jones J.[3]
Durasovic V.
6-16-4
Neumayer L.[7]
Bassem Sobhy M.
6-17-63
Gojo B.
Schwaerzler J.
6-46-1
Pacheco Mendez R.[8]
Kirkin E.
7-56-4
R32
Butvilas E.
Den Ouden G.[1]
7-53-66-3
Pacheco Mendez R.[8]
Mckennon M.
6-16-4
Mrva M.
Albot R.
6-36-1
Harris L.[5]
Purtseladze S.
6-26-2
Coppejans K.
Popko D.[6]
1-66-36-2
Zahraj P.
Zakaryia F.
6-26-1
Durasovic V.
Paire B.
4-66-36-1
Pinnington Jones J.[3]
Gentzsch T.
6-17-65
Neumayer L.[7]
Kuzmanov D.
6-46-0
Bassem Sobhy M.
Kopp S.
6-43-66-3
Gojo B.
Clarke J.[2]
6-16-4
Schwaerzler J.
Napolitano S.
3-67-600-0
Ajdukovic D.
Gulin S.
7-51-67-62
Kirkin E.
Boogaard T.
2-66-36-3
Geerts M.
Martineau M.
7-636-1
Blancaneaux G.
Giustino L.[4]
6-26-1