Xinyu Wang and Jamie Loeb will square off in the qualifications of the Tennis in the Land for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Sunday at 10:00 am on STADIUM COURT. Here the head to head stats and relative prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Xinyu Wang who should win in 2 sets.
Xinyu Wang -> 1.113
Jamie Loeb -> 5.7
Click here to see the updated quotes and live streaming (only selected countries - USA excluded).
Here where top tennis events are broadcasted or streamed online (ATP, WTA).
At the challenger level, there will be free live streaming on Challenger TV.
Prediction and head to head Xinyu Wang vs. Jamie Loeb
There is no head to head record between Xinyu Wang and Jamie Loeb since this will be the first time that they will square off in the main tour.
Xinyu Wang
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 31-26 | 20-18 | 6-5 | 0-0 | 5-3 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 37-24 | 32-17 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 3-2 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 31-27 | 8-14 | 5-5 | 15-6 | 3-2 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 35-26 | 10-9 | 6-8 | 14-6 | 5-3 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 16-10 | 6-6 | 2-1 | 8-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 57 (career-high), the Chinese reached the qualifications after beating Ena Shibahara 6-2 6-3.
In the qualifications, Wang had a good straight sets win against Shibahara (6-2 6-3). During the match, Wang scored 64 points vs Shibahara’s 44. Xinyu was extremely aggressive to blast 17 winners.
Regarding the service games, Wang scored just 1 ace throughout the encounter and she committed only 4 double faults. Xinyu Wang lost the serve 3 times and she saved 3 break points. Furthermore, Wang put 56% of her first serves in, winning 61% (17/28) of the points behind her 1st serve and 50% (11/22) on the 2nd serve. Xinyu broke Shibahara 7 times after converting 78% of her break points (7/9).
Wang has a solid win-loss record in the last 8 years having won 60% of her matches (188-125). 20-11 on hard in 2023. In connection with her performance on the same surface of this event, Wang has an overall110-76 match record in the last 8 years on hard.
Her best result of the season was winning the title the W100 Landisville where she defeated Madison Brengle in the final 6-2 6-3.
Wang has a composed 25-18 win-loss record in 2023, 20-11 on hard (See FULL STATS).
Previously in Cleveland
The Chinese has never competed in this tournament before.
Jamie Loeb
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 19-29 | 11-11 | 6-7 | 2-10 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 27-30 | 11-14 | 8-12 | 8-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 27-26 | 16-13 | 2-7 | 6-3 | 3-3 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 21-20 | 6-6 | 15-11 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 15-16 | 9-8 | 1-6 | 5-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 279, Loeb reached the qualifications after defeating Rylie Hanford 6-1 3-6 6-1.
In the qualifications, Loeb defeated Hanford (6-1 3-6 6-1). During the match Loeb scored 79 points vs Hanford’s 53. Jamie was pretty aggressive to blast 20 winners.
Talking about serving, Loeb bagged 2 aces and she committed only 1 double fault for the entire match. Jamie Loeb lost the serve 4 times and she saved 1 break points. Furthermore, Loeb put 51% of her first serves in, winning 77% (20/26) of the points behind her 1st serve and 48% (12/25) on the 2nd serve. The American broke Hanford 8 times after converting 57% of her break points (8/14).
Her best result of the year was winning the title the W25 Malibu where she beat Renata Zarazua in the final 6-4 6-1.
Jamie has an overall 19-21 win-loss record in 2023, 11-10 on hard (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Wang | Loeb |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 2 | 3 |
| Tot Games | 17 | 23 |
| Pts | 64-44 | 79-53 |
| Total Points | 108 | 132 |
| Winners | 17 | 20 |
| %Winners | 27% | 25% |
Both Wang and Loeb played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.At the moment, Jamie Loeb surrendered 1 set while Xinyu Wang hasn’t conceded a set so far. Wang has played 1 set(s) less than Loeb (2 vs 3). Therefore, Wang played 6 games less than Loeb. Wang scored 17 winners (27% of the total points). On the other side, The American scored 20 winners (25%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Wang | Loeb |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 1 | 2 |
| Avg per match | 1 | 2 |
| 1st in | 28/50 | 26/51 |
| %1st in | 56% | 51% |
| 1st pts | 17/28 | 20/26 |
| %1st pts | 61% | 77% |
| 2nd pts | 11/22 | 12/25 |
| %2nd pts | 50% | 48% |
Wang struck 1 ace . Loeb also blasted 2 aces . Wang won 61% points on her first serve. She pretty solid on her second serve to win 50% of the points. On the other side, Loeb won 77% of the points behind her first serve. She had a solid display on her second serve to win 48% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Wang | Loeb |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 7 | 8 |
| Converted | 7/9 | 8/14 |
| % Converted | 78% | 57% |
| Conceded | 6 | 5 |
| Saved | 3 | 1 |
| % Saved | 50% | 20% |
| Times Broken | 3 | 4 |
The Chinese broke her opponent 7 times with a 78% conversion rate. Xinyu lost her serve 3 times and she saved 50% of the break points that she conceded. Loeb broke her opponent 8 times with a 57% conversion rate. Loeb conceded her serve 4 times and she saved 20% of the break points that she conceded.
| Wang | |||
| Q1 Shibahara | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-2 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 17 | 17 | |
| pts | 64-44 | 64-44 | |
| Total points | 108 | 108 | |
| Winners | 17 | 17 | |
| %Winners | 27% | 27% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 1 | 1 | |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 | |
| 1st in | 28/50 | 28/50 | |
| % 1st in | 56% | 56% | |
| 1st pts | 17/28 | 17/28 | |
| % 1st pts | 61% | 61% | |
| 2nd pts | 11/22 | 11/22 | |
| % 2nd pts | 50% | 50% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 7 | 7 | |
| Converted | 7/9 | 7/9 | |
| Converted % | 78% | 78% | |
| Conceded | 6 | 6 | |
| Saved | 3/6 | 3 | |
| Saved % | 50% | 50% | |
| Times Broken | 3 | 3 | |
| Loeb | |||
| Q1 Hanford | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-1 3-6 6-1 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 23 | 23 | |
| pts | 79-53 | 79-53 | |
| Total points | 132 | 132 | |
| Winners | 20 | 20 | |
| %Winners | 25% | 25% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 2 | 2 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 1 | |
| 1st in | 26/51 | 26/51 | |
| % 1st in | 51% | 51% | |
| 1st pts | 20/26 | 20/26 | |
| % 1st pts | 77% | 77% | |
| 2nd pts | 12/25 | 12/25 | |
| % 2nd pts | 48% | 48% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 8 | 8 | |
| Converted | 8/14 | 8/14 | |
| Converted % | 57% | 57% | |
| Conceded | 5 | 5 | |
| Saved | 1/5 | 1 | |
| Saved % | 20% | 20% | |
| Times Broken | 4 | 4 | |
Tennis Scores in Cleveland
- Renzo OlivoOlivo – Roberto QuirozQuiroz (6-0 7-65) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Joao DominguesDomingues – Ivan NedelkoNedelko (6-2 6-1) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Sebastian OfnerOfner – Pedro CachinCachin (4-6 6-2 6-4) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Guilherme ClezarClezar – Pedro SakamotoSakamoto (6-2 6-1) – Stats, scores, rankings
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Xin Yu WangYu Wang – Jamie LoebLoeb (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Clara BurelBurel – Sara Sorribes TormoSorribes Tormo (0-3) – H2H and prediction
- Martina TrevisanTrevisan – Xiyu WangWang (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Nadia PodoroskaPodoroska – Clara TausonTauson (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Aliaksandra SasnovichSasnovich – Fernanda Contreras GomezContreras Gomez (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Magdalena FrechFrech – Tamara KorpatschKorpatsch (1-2) – H2H and prediction
- Caroline GarciaGarcia – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Sloane StephensStephens – Julia GrabherGrabher (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Lin ZhuZhu – Anna BlinkovaBlinkova (1-1) – H2H and prediction
- Ekaterina AlexandrovaAlexandrova – Patricia Maria TigMaria Tig (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Emma NavarroNavarro – Jasmine PaoliniPaolini (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Irina-Camelia BeguBegu – Mayar SherifSherif (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Elisabetta CocciarettoCocciaretto – Lauren DavisDavis (2-1) – H2H and prediction
- Anhelina KalininaKalinina – Ana BogdanBogdan (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Tatjana MariaMaria – Varvara GrachevaGracheva (0-1) – H2H and prediction