Jason Jung and Charles Broom will clash against each other in the qualifications of the Ilkley Challenger for the 1st time in their career. They are scheduled to compete on Monday at 11:00 am on COURT 4. Here the head to head stats and relative prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Jason Jung who should win in 3 sets.
As per the initial odds, Jason Jung is the pick to win this match.
Jason Jung -> 1.47
Charles Broom -> 2.6
Click here to see the updated quotes and live streaming (only selected countries - USA excluded).
To be able to watch live streaming bet365, a funded account is required or you need to have placed a bet in the last 24 hours. 18+ BeGambleAware.
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 Jason Jung vs. Charles Broom
There is no head to head record between Jason Jung and Charles Broom since this will be the first time that they will square off in the main tour.
Jason Jung
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 4-2 | 4-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 42-25 | 40-23 | 0-1 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 25-28 | 13-14 | 2-5 | 4-4 | 6-5 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 12-25 | 5-12 | 1-4 | 2-6 | 4-3 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 16-18 | 7-8 | 2-4 | 7-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 249, Jason got to the qualifications after beating Matheus Pucinelli De Almeida 6-4 1-6 7-5.
In the qualifications, Jung defeated Pucinelli De Almeida (6-4 1-6 7-5).During the match, Jung scored less points (3) than Pucinelli De Almeida. In fact, the world no. 249 won 97 points vs Pucinelli De Almeida’s. That means that Jung was more focused during the important points. Jason was pretty aggressive to blast 47 winners.
Regarding the service games, Jung scored just 1 ace in the match and he committed only 6 double faults. Jason Jung lost the serve twice and he saved 11 break points. Furthermore, Jung put 67% of his first serves in, winning 71% (47/66) of the points behind his 1st serve and 47% (15/32) on the 2nd serve. The Chinese broke Pucinelli De Almeida twice after converting 25% of his break points (2/8).
Jung has a winning record in the last 10 years having won 56% of his matches (315-252). 4-2 on grass in 2022. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this tournament, Jung has a compiled 18-23 record in the last years on grass.
Jung has a composed 11-15 win-loss record in 2022, 4-2 on grass (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Ilkley Challenger
Charles Broom
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 30-19 | 15-7 | 0-0 | 7-6 | 8-6 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 41-34 | 8-7 | 0-4 | 20-15 | 11-6 | 2-2 |
| 2022 | 44-30 | 28-17 | 0-0 | 10-7 | 6-6 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 35-10 | 20-6 | 8-3 | 7-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2020 | 7-3 | 7-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 444 (career-high), the Brit reached the qualifications after defeating Gilles Simon 6-4 6-1.
In the qualifications, The Brit had a good straight sets win against Simon (6-4 6-1). During the match Broom scored 67 points vs Simon’s 48. The Brit was very aggressive to blast 25 winners.
About the serving games, Broom bagged 7 aces and he committed only 1 double fault for the entire match. Charles Broom was exceptionally effective on serve to win 81% (25/31) of his 1st serve and 69% (11/16) on the second serve. This was the main reason for not conceding a single break during the match. The Brit broke Simon 4 times after converting 50% of his break points (4/8).
Broom’s best result of the current year was getting to the final in M25 Bath,M25 Calabasas and M15 Heraklion.
The Brit has an aggregate 25-14 win-loss record in 2022, 2-2 on grass (See FULL STATS).
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Jung | Broom |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 1 |
| Tot Set | 3 | 2 |
| Tot Games | 29 | 17 |
| Pts | 97-100 | 67-48 |
| Total Points | 197 | 115 |
| Winners | 47 | 25 |
| %Winners | 48% | 37% |
Both Jung and Broom played 1 match. Also both players started their run from the qualifications.At the moment, Jason Jung conceded 1 set while Charles Broom hasn’t surrendered a set so far. Jung has played 1 set more than Broom (3 vs 2). Therefore, Jung played 12 games more than Broom. Jung scored 47 winners (48% of the total points). On the other side, The Brit bagged 25 winners (37%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Jung | Broom |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 1 | 7 |
| Avg per match | 1 | 7 |
| 1st in | 66/98 | 31/47 |
| %1st in | 67% | 66% |
| 1st pts | 47/66 | 25/31 |
| %1st pts | 71% | 81% |
| 2nd pts | 15/32 | 11/16 |
| %2nd pts | 47% | 69% |
Jung struck 1 ace . Broom also struck 7 aces . Jung won 71% points behind his first serve. He pretty effective on his second serve to win 47% of the points. On the other side, Broom won 81% of the points on his first serve. He had a solid display on his second serve to win 69% of the points.
How they played the important points
| Breaks | Jung | Broom |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 2 | 4 |
| Converted | 2/8 | 4/8 |
| % Converted | 25% | 50% |
| Conceded | 13 | 3 |
| Saved | 11 | 3 |
| % Saved | 85% | 100% |
| Times Broken | 2 | 0 |
Jung broke his opponent twice with a 25% conversion rate. Jason conceded his serve twice and he saved 85% of the break points that he conceded. Broom broke his opponent 4 times with a 50% conversion rate. Broom was rock solid on his serve as he has never conceded a single service game after saving 3 break points.
| Jung | |||
| Q1 Pucinelli De Almeida |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 1-6 7-5 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 29 | 29 | |
| pts | 97-100 | 97-100 | |
| Total points | 197 | 197 | |
| Winners | 47 | 47 | |
| %Winners | 48% | 48% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 1 | 1 | |
| Double Faults | 6 | 6 | |
| 1st in | 66/98 | 66/98 | |
| % 1st in | 67% | 67% | |
| 1st pts | 47/66 | 47/66 | |
| % 1st pts | 71% | 71% | |
| 2nd pts | 15/32 | 15/32 | |
| % 2nd pts | 47% | 47% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 2 | 2 | |
| Converted | 2/8 | 2/8 | |
| Converted % | 25% | 25% | |
| Conceded | 13 | 13 | |
| Saved | 11/13 | 11 | |
| Saved % | 85% | 85% | |
| Times Broken | 2 | 2 | |
| Broom | |||
| Q1 Simon |
Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-4 6-1 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 2 | |
| Tot Games | 17 | 17 | |
| pts | 67-48 | 67-48 | |
| Total points | 115 | 115 | |
| Winners | 25 | 25 | |
| %Winners | 37% | 37% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 7 | 7 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 1 | |
| 1st in | 31/47 | 31/47 | |
| % 1st in | 66% | 66% | |
| 1st pts | 25/31 | 25/31 | |
| % 1st pts | 81% | 81% | |
| 2nd pts | 11/16 | 11/16 | |
| % 2nd pts | 69% | 69% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 4 | 4 | |
| Converted | 4/8 | 4/8 | |
| Converted % | 50% | 50% | |
| Conceded | 3 | 3 | |
| Saved | 3/3 | 3 | |
| Saved % | 100% | 100% | |
| Times Broken | 0 | 0 | |
Head 2 Head
LWWWLW
LLLWLWLWWW
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Fernando VerdascoVerdasco – Mikhail KukushkinKukushkin (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Lukas LackoLacko – Rinky HijikataHijikata (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Vasek PospisilPospisil – Aidan MchughMchugh (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Daniel CoxCox – Antoine BellierBellier (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- John MillmanMillman – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Pierre-Hugues HerbertHerbert – Henri LaaksonenLaaksonen (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jack SockSock – Michael MmohMmoh (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Constant LestienneLestienne – (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Jordan ThompsonThompson – Nuno BorgesBorges (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Altug CelikbilekCelikbilek – Jiri VeselyVesely (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Ernesto EscobedoEscobedo – Tim Van RijthovenVan Rijthoven (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Sebastian OfnerOfner – Jesper De JongDe Jong (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Hugo GrenierGrenier – Ramkumar RamanathanRamanathan (0-4) – H2H and prediction
- Borna GojoGojo – Daniel MasurMasur (1-1) – H2H and prediction
- Alexei PopyrinPopyrin – Gijs BrouwerBrouwer (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Zizou BergsBergs – Anton MatusevichMatusevich (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Charles BroomBroom – Jason JungJung (0-0) – H2H and prediction
