
Yi Zhou and Daniel De Jonge will play each other in the 2nd round of the Nottingham 3 Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Wednesday at 11:00 am on COURT 3. Here the head to head stats and relative prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Yi Zhou who should win in 2 sets.
As per the initial odds, Yi Zhou is the pick to win this match.
Yi Zhou -> 1.27
Daniel De Jonge -> 3.34
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.
Â
Prediction and head to head Yi Zhou vs. Daniel De Jonge
There is no head to head record between Yi Zhou and Daniel De Jonge since this will be the first time that they will square off in the main tour.
Yi Zhou

16 - 14win/loss
273
217
LWWLLLWLWL | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 21-20 | 13-14 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 8-4 | 0-0 |
| 2025 | 25-27 | 25-27 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 29-25 | 29-23 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 10-17 | 9-12 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 240, Yi reached the 2nd round after defeating Robin Catry 6-4 6-3.
In the 1st round, Zhou had a good straight sets win against Catry (6-4 6-3). During the match, Zhou scored 68 points vs Catry’s 58. Zhou was very aggressive to blast 26 winners.
Talking about the service games, Zhou fired 4 aces and he committed only 4 double faults. Yi Zhou lost the serve twice and he saved 6 break points. Furthermore, Zhou put 51% of his first serves in, winning 76% (26/34) of the points behind his 1st serve and 45% (15/33) on the 2nd serve. The Chinese broke Catry 4 times after converting 31% of his break points (4/13).
Zhou has a losing record in the last 5 years having won 49% of his matches (81-84). 7-3 on grass in 2026. Regarding his performance on the same surface of this tournament, Zhou has a compiled7-3 match record in the last 5 years on grass.
Zhou’s best result of the current year was getting to the semifinal in the Phan Thiet 2 Challenger.
Zhou has a compiled 16-14 win-loss record in 2026, 7-3 on grass (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Nottingham 3 Challenger
Zhou has never competed in this tournament before.
Daniel De Jonge

21 - 8win/loss
583
562
WLWLLWWWLW | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 30-15 | 10-5 | 0-2 | 10-6 | 1-1 | 9-1 |
| 2025 | 33-22 | 12-8 | 0-4 | 20-9 | 0-0 | 1-1 |
| 2024 | 14-21 | 4-5 | 9-11 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 29-17 | 17-9 | 5-5 | 4-2 | 0-0 | 3-1 |
| 2022 | 4-5 | 2-1 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 619, De reached the 2nd round after beating Emile Hudd 7-6(6) 6-4.
In the 1st round, De had a good straight sets win against Hudd (7-66 6-4). During the match De scored 78 points vs Hudd’s 73. The Dutch was very aggressive to blast 42 winners.
Talking about serving, De made 5 aces and he committed only 3 double faults. Daniel De Jonge conceded no breaks for the entire match to save 3 break points. Furthermore, De put 62% of his first serves in, winning 84% (42/50) of the points behind his 1st serve and 48% (15/31) on the 2nd serve. The Dutch was clinical in his return game without wasting any break point and break Hudd once.
Daniel’s best result of the current season was getting to the final in M15 Cadolzburg,M15 Sherbrooke and M15 Monastir.
The Dutch has a compiled 21-8 win-loss record in 2026, 1-0 on grass (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Zhou | De |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 |
| Tot Games | 19 | 23 |
| Pts | 68-58 | 78-73 |
| Total Points | 126 | 151 |
| Winners | 26 | 42 |
| %Winners | 38% | 54% |
Both Zhou and De played 1 match. Both players have not surrendered a single set in this event so far. Talking about their workload, Zhou and De have played the same amount of sets 2. However, Zhou played 4 games less than De. Zhou scored 26 winners (38% of the total points). On the other side, Daniel made 42 winners (54%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Zhou | De |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 4 | 5 |
| Avg per match | 4 | 5 |
| 1st in | 34/67 | 50/81 |
| %1st in | 51% | 62% |
| 1st pts | 26/34 | 42/50 |
| %1st pts | 76% | 84% |
| 2nd pts | 15/33 | 15/31 |
| %2nd pts | 45% | 48% |
Zhou blasted 4 aces . De managed to score 5 aces . Zhou won 76% points on his first serve. He extremely effective on his second serve to win 45% of the points. On the other side, De won 84% of the points behind his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 48% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Zhou | De |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 4 | 1 |
| Converted | 4/13 | 1/1 |
| % Converted | 31% | 100% |
| Conceded | 8 | 3 |
| Saved | 6 | 3 |
| % Saved | 75% | 100% |
| Times Broken | 2 | 0 |
Yi broke his opponent 4 times with a 31% conversion rate. Zhou lost his serve twice and he saved 75% of the break points that he conceded. De broke his opponent once with a 100% conversion rate. Daniel was rock solid on his serve as he has never conceded a single service game after saving 3 break points.
| Zhou | |||
| R1 Catry |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 19 | 19 | |
| pts | 68-58 | 68-58 | |
| Total points | 126 | 126 | |
| Winners | 26 | 26 | |
| %Winners | 38% | 38% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 4 | 4 | |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 | |
| 1st in | 34/67 | 34/67 | |
| % 1st in | 51% | 51% | |
| 1st pts | 26/34 | 26/34 | |
| % 1st pts | 76% | 76% | |
| 2nd pts | 15/33 | 15/33 | |
| % 2nd pts | 45% | 45% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/13 | 4/13 | |
| Converted % | 31% | 31% | |
| Conceded | 8 | 8 | |
| Saved | 6/8 | 6 | |
| Saved % | 75% | 75% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
| De | |||
| R1 Hudd |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 7-66 6-4 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 23 | 23 | |
| pts | 78-73 | 78-73 | |
| Total points | 151 | 151 | |
| Winners | 42 | 42 | |
| %Winners | 54% | 54% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 5 | 5 | |
| Double Faults | 3 | 3 | |
| 1st in | 50/81 | 50/81 | |
| % 1st in | 62% | 62% | |
| 1st pts | 42/50 | 42/50 | |
| % 1st pts | 84% | 84% | |
| 2nd pts | 15/31 | 15/31 | |
| % 2nd pts | 48% | 48% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 1 | 1 | |
| Converted | 1/1 | 1/1 | |
| Converted % | 100% | 100% | |
| Conceded | 3 | 3 | |
| Saved | 3/3 | 3 | |
| Saved % | 100% | 100% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | |
Head 2 Head
WWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWW Tennis Scores in Nottingham 3 Challenger
- Patrick BradyBrady – Herman HoeyeraalHoeyeraal (6-3 7-5) – See score progression
- Max BasingBasing – Filippo RomanoRomano (0-6 6-3 7-65) – See score progression
- Amit ValesVales – Marcus WaltersWalters (6-2 6-1) – See score progression
- Ivan IvanovIvanov – Niels ViskerVisker (7-6(3) 6-3) – See score progression
- Filip Jeff PlaninsekJeff Planinsek – Igor Ribeiro MarcondesRibeiro Marcondes (7-6(4) 6-3) – See score progression
- Henry SearleSearle – Patrick ZahrajZahraj (6-4 6-72 6-3) – See score progression
- Yi ZhouZhou – Robin CatryCatry (6-4 6-3) – See score progression
- Luca CastelnuovoCastelnuovo – Mitsuki Wei Kang LeongWei Kang Leong (7-64 6-3) – See score progression
- Finn Bass/James MackinlayBass/James Mackinlay – Charles Barry/Conor GannonBarry/Conor Gannon (6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Clement ChidekhChidekh – Maxime JanvierJanvier (4-6 6-4 6-3) – See score progression
- Alastair GrayGray – Oscar WeightmanWeightman (6-2 6-4) – See score progression
- Lui MaxtedMaxted – Antoine GhibaudoGhibaudo (6-3 6-1) – See score progression
- Daniel De JongeDe Jonge – Emile HuddHudd (7-66 6-4) – See score progression
- Alberto Barroso CamposBarroso Campos – Guillaume DalmassoDalmasso (6-3 6-4) – See score progression
- Ivan IvanovIvanov – Niels ViskerVisker (7-6(3) 6-3) – See score progression
- Yi ZhouZhou – Robin CatryCatry (6-4 6-3) – See score progression
- Patrick BradyBrady – Herman HoeyeraalHoeyeraal (6-3 7-5) – See score progression
- Amit ValesVales – Marcus WaltersWalters (6-2 6-1) – See score progression
- Henry SearleSearle – Patrick ZahrajZahraj (6-4 6-7(2) 6-3) – See score progression
- Max BasingBasing – Filippo RomanoRomano (0-6 6-3 7-6(5)) – See score progression
- Luca CastelnuovoCastelnuovo – Mitsuki Wei Kang LeongWei Kang Leong (7-6(4) 6-3) – See score progression
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Clement ChidekhChidekh – Alberto Barroso CamposBarroso Campos (2-1) – H2H and prediction
- Arda AzkaraAzkara – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Max BasingBasing – Luca CastelnuovoCastelnuovo (1-0) – H2H and prediction







