Tommy Paul vs Learner Tien — Delray Beach Semi-final

Delray Beach · ATP · Semi-final
Tommy Paul
USA5
Tommy Paul
#25ATP
1949ELO
1881Hard ELO
$1.7MYTD
$15MCAREER
29 yrs · 185 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWWLWWWWLW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 16 February 2026
hard
Learner Tien
USA4
Learner Tien
#17ATP
1941ELO
1904Hard ELO
$1.3MYTD
$4.4MCAREER
20 yrs · 180 cm · Left-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LWLWLWWWWW
Paul T.
4-6 6-4 6-3
Tien L.
Paul T.
4662
Tien L.
6431

Tommy Paul defeated Learner Tien 4-6 6-4 6-3 in the Delray Beach semi-final on hard. The upset overturned the form book — Learner Tien came in ranked #17, defending last year's round of 16.

Key context

Head to head

No previous meetings on record.

Serve vs return

This season
Paul T.serving91% hold

wins 71% of points on serve vs Tien L.

Tien L.serving86% hold

wins 67% of points on serve vs Paul T.

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

Paul T.Tien L.
71
Serve
32
54
Return
67

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

Statistics

This season
Paul T.Tien L.
1st serve in·Even
63%
61%
1st serve points won·Even
77%
73%
2nd serve points won·Slight edge
56%
51%
Service points won·Even
69%
65%
Return points won·Even
37%
37%
Break points saved·Even
60%
59%
Aces / match·Clear edge
6.6
8.9
Double faults / match·Dominant
1.4
5.0

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (25 vs 18). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Paul T.Tien L.
Clutch Rating·Even
93
90
Break points saved·Even
99
97
Break points won·Even
87
83
Deciding sets·Even
98
100
Tiebreaks·Even
96
100

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Paul T.
6.5
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Tien L.
6.6
Marginal edgeUmpiry Score
Form & Matchup
4.8Hard Elo 1881
Surface ELO
5.2+23 Hard Elo edge
5.3Overall Elo 1949
ELO gap
4.7Overall Elo 1941
5.0No prior meetings
H2H
5.0
6.1
Surface form
6.7
Win streak
0.0Lost last 2
Fatigue & Travel
7.4
Minutes 14d
8.9
4.0
3-set count
7.0
Prev. match
8.0
Context
5.0
Defending pts
6.0

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
Paul T.Tien L.
Freshness·Even
84
87

Paul T.: 8 days rest · 3 matches (14d) · Tien L.: 10 days rest · 2 matches (14d). Higher means fresher. About

Conditions

Court speed
Medium-fastrewards aggression
SlowFast
Final
Korda S.
Paul T.[5]
6-46-3
Semi-finals
Paul T.[5]
Tien L.[4]
4-66-46-3
Korda S.
Cobolli F.[3]
7-616-1
Quarter-finals
Cobolli F.[3]
Wong C.
7-56-776-2
Korda S.
Ruud C.[2]
4-66-26-2
Tien L.[4]
Tiafoe F.[8]
7-653-67-5
Paul T.[5]
Fritz T.[1]
6-46-3
R16
Cobolli F.[3]
Atmane T.
7-56-4
Tien L.[4]
Kecmanovic M.
6-46-747-65
Fritz T.[1]
Jodar R.
7-646-4
Ruud C.[2]
Giron M.
4-67-666-4
Tiafoe F.[8]
Svajda Z.
6-43-67-5
Wong C.
Nakashima B.[7]
6-47-64
Paul T.[5]
Walton A.
7-6116-3
Korda S.
Michelsen A.
6-37-66
R32
Nakashima B.[7]
Cilic M.
7-647-65
Paul T.[5]
Moutet C.
4-66-36-4
Walton A.
Diallo G.
7-646-3
Wong C.
Borges N.
7-654-66-3
Kecmanovic M.
Bellucci M.
6-16-4
Tiafoe F.[8]
Hijikata R.
6-46-4
Atmane T.
Kypson P.
6-32-66-4
Svajda Z.
Kovacevic A.
7-646-3
Giron M.
Shimabukuro S.
6-37-5
Michelsen A.
Vacherot V.[6]
7-646-4
Jodar R.
Quinn E.
6-26-3
Korda S.
Mcdonald M.
6-47-5