Daniel Milavsky and Quinn Vandecasteele will square off in the qualifications of the Newport Challenger for the 2nd time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Tuesday at 9:00 pm on INDOOR 1. In the following paragraphs, you can find the head to head analysis and prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Daniel Milavsky who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Daniel Milavsky is the pick to win this match.
Daniel Milavsky -> 1.82
Quinn Vandecasteele -> 1.86
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 Daniel Milavsky vs. Quinn Vandecasteele
This will be the 2nd time that Daniel Milavsky and Quinn Vandecasteele face off. The head to head is 1-0 for Vandecasteele (see full H2H stats), but they have never played each other on grass.
The last time that they locked horns, Vandecasteele won 6-3 6-3 in the 1st round in Salem back in January 2026.
Daniel Milavsky
26 - 15win/loss
315
306
LWLLLLWWWL | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 39-24 | 18-15 | 1-2 | 16-6 | 4-1 | 0-0 |
| 2025 | 44-22 | 30-15 | 1-1 | 13-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 12-3 | 3-2 | 2-1 | 7-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 8-4 | 7-4 | 1-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 367, Daniel got to the qualifications after defeating Masamichi Imamura 6-4 6-7(3) 6-1.
In the qualifications, Milavsky defeated Imamura (6-4 6-73 6-1). During the match, Milavsky scored 103 points vs Imamura’s 85. Daniel was pretty aggressive to blast 47 winners.
Talking about the service games, Milavsky blasted 9 aces and he committed only 4 double faults. Overall, Daniel Milavsky was very efficient on serve to win 77% (47/61) of his 1st serve and 53% (16/30) on the second serve. However, this didn’t prevent his to concede the serve once. Milavsky broke Imamura 4 times after converting 44% of his break points (4/9).
Milavsky has a solid win-loss record in the last 5 years having won 66% of his matches (90-46). 1-0 on grass in 2026. In connection with his performance on the same surface of this event, Milavsky has an aggregate1-1 match record in the last 5 years on grass.
Daniel’s best result of the season was getting to the final in M15 Villahermosa.
Milavsky has an overall 25-15 win-loss record in 2026, 1-0 on grass (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Newport Challenger
Previously, his best result was reaching the 1st round in 2025. See his history.
Quinn Vandecasteele
27 - 18win/loss
473
438
LWLLWLWWLW | Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 35-27 | 13-14 | 5-4 | 14-6 | 3-3 | 0-0 |
| 2025 | 33-32 | 25-19 | 0-3 | 6-9 | 2-1 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 17-20 | 13-13 | 0-1 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 29-13 | 28-11 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 10-8 | 8-7 | 0-0 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 455, Vandecasteele got to the qualifications after defeating James Kent Trotter 6-7(6) 7-6(6) 6-3.
In the qualifications against Kent Trotter, Vandecasteele recovered from a 1-set down deficit before winning (6-76 7-66 6-3). During the match Vandecasteele scored 122 points vs Kent Trotter’s 114. Vandecasteele was exceptionally aggressive to blast 52 winners.
About the serving games, Vandecasteele bagged 13 aces and he committed only 6 double faults. Quinn Vandecasteele lost the serve twice and he saved 6 break points. Furthermore, Vandecasteele put 52% of his first serves in, winning 78% (52/67) of the points behind his 1st serve and 49% (31/63) on the 2nd serve. Vandecasteele broke Kent Trotter 3 times after converting 60% of his break points (3/5).
The American’s best result of the current year was reaching the semifinal in Salem.
The American has an overall 27-17 win-loss record in 2026, 3-2 on grass (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Newport Challenger
Previously, his best result was reaching the 1st round in 2025. See his history.
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Milavsky | Vandecasteele |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 |
| Tot Games | 30 | 35 |
| Pts | 103-85 | 122-114 |
| Total Points | 188 | 236 |
| Winners | 47 | 52 |
| %Winners | 46% | 43% |
Both Milavsky and Vandecasteele played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.Both players lost a set in the event. Daniel Milavsky surrendered 1 set, while Quinn Vandecasteele conceded 1 set. Talking about their workload, Milavsky and Vandecasteele have played the same amount of sets 3. However, Milavsky played 5 games less than Vandecasteele. The American scored 47 winners (46% of the total points). On the other side, Quinn fired 52 winners (43%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Milavsky | Vandecasteele |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 9 | 13 |
| Avg per match | 9 | 13 |
| 1st in | 61/91 | 67/130 |
| %1st in | 67% | 52% |
| 1st pts | 47/61 | 52/67 |
| %1st pts | 77% | 78% |
| 2nd pts | 16/30 | 31/63 |
| %2nd pts | 53% | 49% |
Milavsky recorded 9 aces . Vandecasteele made 13 aces . Milavsky won 77% points behind his first serve. He pretty effective on his second serve to win 53% of the points. On the other side, Vandecasteele won 78% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 49% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Milavsky | Vandecasteele |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 4 | 3 |
| Converted | 4/9 | 3/5 |
| % Converted | 44% | 60% |
| Conceded | 5 | 8 |
| Saved | 4 | 6 |
| % Saved | 80% | 75% |
| Times Broken | 1 | 2 |
Daniel broke his opponent 4 times with a 44% conversion rate. Milavsky lost his serve once and he saved 80% of the break points that he conceded. Quinn broke his opponent 3 times with a 60% conversion rate. Vandecasteele conceded his serve twice and he saved 75% of the break points that he conceded.
| Milavsky | |||
| Q1 Imamura |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 6-73 6-1 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 30 | 30 | |
| pts | 103-85 | 103-85 | |
| Total points | 188 | 188 | |
| Winners | 47 | 47 | |
| %Winners | 46% | 46% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 9 | 9 | |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 | |
| 1st in | 61/91 | 61/91 | |
| % 1st in | 67% | 67% | |
| 1st pts | 47/61 | 47/61 | |
| % 1st pts | 77% | 77% | |
| 2nd pts | 16/30 | 16/30 | |
| % 2nd pts | 53% | 53% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/9 | 4/9 | |
| Converted % | 44% | 44% | |
| Conceded | 5 | 5 | |
| Saved | 4/5 | 4 | |
| Saved % | 80% | 80% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 1 | |
| Vandecasteele | |||
| Q1 Kent |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-76 7-66 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 35 | 35 | |
| pts | 122-114 | 122-114 | |
| Total points | 236 | 236 | |
| Winners | 52 | 52 | |
| %Winners | 43% | 43% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 13 | 13 | |
| Double Faults | 6 | 6 | |
| 1st in | 67/130 | 67/130 | |
| % 1st in | 52% | 52% | |
| 1st pts | 52/67 | 52/67 | |
| % 1st pts | 78% | 78% | |
| 2nd pts | 31/63 | 31/63 | |
| % 2nd pts | 49% | 49% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 3 | 3 | |
| Converted | 3/5 | 3/5 | |
| Converted % | 60% | 60% | |
| Conceded | 8 | 8 | |
| Saved | 6/8 | 6 | |
| Saved % | 75% | 75% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
Head 2 Head
WWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWW Tennis Scores in Newport Challenger
- Andre IlaganIlagan – Alex RybakovRybakov (3-6 6-4 6-3) – Stats, scores, rankings
- Tyler ZinkTyler – Ozan BarisOzan (7-6(2) 6-3) – See score progression
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Adrian MannarinoMannarino – Remy BertolaBertola (0-2) – H2H and prediction
- Jason JungJung – Hiroki MoriyaMoriya (5-1) – H2H and prediction
- Bernard TomicTomic – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Mackenzie McdonaldMcdonald – Adam WaltonWalton (1-1) – H2H and prediction
- Stefan KozlovKozlov – Garrett JohnsJohns (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Aleksandar VukicVukic – Liam BroadyBroady (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Alexis GalarneauGalarneau – Juan Pablo FicovichPablo Ficovich (2-0) – H2H and prediction
- August HolmgrenHolmgren – Tristan SchoolkateSchoolkate (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Daniil GlinkaGlinka – Bu YunchaoketeYunchaokete (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Patrick MaloneyMaloney – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jacob FearnleyFearnley – (1-0) – H2H and prediction
