Li Tu vs Charles Broom — Wuning 2 CH Semi-final

Wuning 2 CH · CHALLENGER · Semi-final
AUS
Li Tu
#464ATP
1488ELO
1471Hard ELO
30 yrs · 183 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLLLLLWWW
2 — 1
Sets
Monday, 13 April 2026
hard
GBR2
Charles Broom
#283ATP
1409ELO
1396Hard ELO
28 yrs · 178 cm · Right-handed
Last 10 · pre-match
LLLWWLWWLL
Tu L.
6-3 1-6 7-6
Broom C.
Tu L.
61782
Broom C.
36661

Li Tu defeated Charles Broom 6-3 1-6 7-6 in the Wuning 2 CH semi-final on hard. The result followed the form book — Li Tu came in leading the head-to-head 1–0. Li Tu extended the head-to-head to 2–0.

Key context

  • Match story: Li Tu closed it out in three sets, 6–3 1–6 7–6.

Head to head

1–0
DateTournamentRoundSurfaceWinnerScore
2024-07-15NewportQ1grassLi Tu6-1 7-5

Serve vs return

This season
Tu L.serving85% hold

wins 66% of points on serve vs Broom C.

Broom C.serving92% 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.Broom C.
1st serve in·Even
60%
63%
1st serve points won·Even
74%
78%
2nd serve points won·Even
52%
53%
Service points won·Even
65%
69%
Return points won·Even
36%
38%
Break points saved·Even
61%
64%
Aces / match·Slight edge
7.6
8.5
Double faults / match·Dominant
3.1
1.4

Averages over each player's completed matches in the selected window (22 vs 17). ATP, WTA & Challenger.

Clutch

Under pressure
Tu L.Broom C.
Clutch Rating·Clear edge
27
12
Break points saved·Dominant
82
56
Break points won·Slight edge
8
0
Deciding sets·Clear edge
20
42
Tiebreaks·Dominant
64
10

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

Umpiry Score

Pre-match
Tu L.
7.1
Strong advantageUmpiry Score
Broom C.
4.9
Heavy underdogUmpiry Score
  • Extended break: 42 days (−0.7)
Form & Matchup
5.9+75 Hard Elo edge
Surface ELO
4.1Hard Elo 1396
6.0Overall Elo 1488
ELO gap
4.0Overall Elo 1409
5.0
H2H
5.0
7.8
Surface form
5.3
Fatigue & Travel
4.6
Minutes 14d
9.0
Prev. match
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
Sun F.[3]
Tu L.
5-76-47-5
Semi-finals
Sun F.[3]
Fomin S.
6-46-4
Tu L.
Broom C.[2]
6-31-67-66
Quarter-finals
Broom C.[2]
Gadamauri B.[8]
7-636-747-64
Tu L.
Ellis B.
6-36-3
Fomin S.
Sin S.
6-35-76-3
Sun F.[3]
Hussey G.[7]
6-23-66-2
R16
Gadamauri B.[8]
Vithoontien L.
6-46-2
Broom C.[2]
Binda A.
6-26-2
Sin S.
Jones M.[6]
6-36-3
Hussey G.[7]
Boulais J.
6-46-4
Ellis B.
Kukushkin M.[4]
6-37-65
Tu L.
Smith K.[5]
3-67-57-69
Sun F.[3]
Sultanov K.
6-46-2
Fomin S.
Bouzige M.
1-67-696-4
R32
Fomin S.
Ostapenkov D.
6-36-4
Bouzige M.
Imamura M.
6-47-5
Sin S.
Leong M.
6-26-2
Jones M.[6]
Jasika O.
6-45-76-2
Sun F.[3]
Sach T.
6-26-1
Boulais J.
Sekulic P.
4-67-626-4
Vithoontien L.
Zeng Y.
6-46-756-1
Kukushkin M.[4]
Cui J.
4-66-46-1
Hussey G.[7]
Weber A.
6-26-2
Smith K.[5]
Aguiard E.
6-46-4
Tu L.
Matsuoka H.
6-37-65
Ellis B.
Xiao L.
4-67-666-4
Binda A.
Gray A.
6-46-2
Broom C.[2]
Moriya H.
6-26-1
Sultanov K.
Wang A.
6-37-64
Gadamauri B.[8]
Shick B.
6-46-2