ATP Challenger Tour · Round of 32 · Astana
Final score
Playing styles and historical archetype record
Medvedev
💥 Big Hitter
Jung
⚙️ Grinder
Matchup analysis
The 💥 Big Hitter archetype wins about 55% vs ⚙️ Grinder across 4,745 matches in our dataset. That is a small stylistic lean for Daniil Medvedev here.
Big Hitter players often use power groundstrokes and high winner count to pressure the grinder's relentless consistency. On Hard, that can swing with conditions.
Hypothetical if you put 1u on each player to win every one of their matches · Last 90 days
| Metric | Medvedev | Jung |
|---|---|---|
| W-L | 8–6 | 0–5 |
| Avg odds | 2.07 | 3.41 |
| ROI % | -16.9% | -100.0% |
| Units P/L | -2.36u | -5.00u |
Small sample: ROI stabilizes with more matches; fewer than 10 in the window is noisy.
Prior meetings and scores · 3 career meetings
2
Medvedev
1
Jung
Oct 28, 2020
Vienna
H Hard · Round of 32
Jul 13, 2016
Astana
H Hard · Round of 32
Jan 4, 2016
Bangkok
H Hard · 3rd Round Qualifying
Serve and return comparison · Last 90 days
| Stat | Medvedev | Jung |
|---|---|---|
| Serve | ||
| 1st Serve In % | 64.4% | 67.9% |
| 1st Serve Pts Won % | 69.4% | 65.2% |
| 2nd Serve Pts Won % | 51.6% | 40% |
| Aces / Match | 4.3 | 3.5 |
| Double Faults / Match | 3.3 | 2 |
| Break Points Saved % | 60.9% | 52.1% |
| Return | ||
| 1st Return Pts Won % | 32.1% | 31.9% |
| 2nd Return Pts Won % | 54.6% | 50.7% |
| BP Converted % | 36.5% | 58.5% |
| Rally | ||
| Winners / Match | 24.3 | 13 |
| Unforced Errors / Match | 27.2 | 22.5 |
| Net Pts Won % | 69% | 62.5% |
| Total Pts Won % | 51.3% | 48% |
| Surface (Hard) | ||
| Hard Win % | 0% | 0% |
Last five matches per player
Matchup overview
Daniil Medvedev and Jason Jung face off in the Round of 32 at Astana on Hard.
Daniil Medvedev leads 2-1 over 3 previous meetings.
Daniil Medvedev is 3-2 over the last 5 matches. Latest result: W vs Terence Atmane (Jun 17).
Jason Jung is 0-5 over the last 5 matches. Latest result: L vs Zdenek Kolar (Jun 9).
Share this match
