Jan Choinski and Ivan Gakhov will square off in the 2nd round of the Valencia Challenger for the 2nd time in their career. They are scheduled to play on Wednesday at 2:00 pm on PISTA 2. In this post, we analyze their head to head performance and prediction.
Prediction, odds and live streaming
The pick for Tennis Tonic is Jan Choinski who should win in 2 sets.
Jan Choinski -> 1.36
Ivan Gakhov -> 2.96
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 Jan Choinski vs. Ivan Gakhov
This will be the 2nd time that Jan Choinski and Ivan Gakhov face off. The head to head is 1-0 for Choinski (see full H2H stats), but they have never competed against each other on clay.
The last time that they squared off, Choinski won 6-3 6-1 in the quarter in M15 St. Petersburg back in 2021.
Jan Choinski
31 - 23win/loss
129
126
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 38-26 | 0-4 | 29-14 | 6-6 | 3-2 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 33-33 | 4-4 | 24-16 | 5-9 | 0-4 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 41-35 | 1-4 | 30-19 | 5-5 | 2-5 | 3-2 |
| 2022 | 46-21 | 5-5 | 35-14 | 6-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 6-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 6-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 158, Jan got to the 2nd round after beating Miguel Damas 6-7(2) 6-3 6-3.
In the 1st round against Damas, Choinski recovered from a 1-set down deficit before winning (6-72 6-3 6-3). During the match, Choinski scored 99 points vs Damas’s 88. Jan was extremely aggressive to blast 44 winners.
Talking about the service games, Choinski fired 6 aces and he committed only 1 double fault. Jan Choinski lost the serve 3 times and he saved 5 break points. Furthermore, Choinski put 68% of his first serves in, winning 64% (44/69) of the points behind his 1st serve and 61% (20/33) on the 2nd serve. Jan broke Damas 6 times after converting 75% of his break points (6/8).
Choinski has good match record in the last 10 years having won 59% of his matches (328-229). 25-14 on clay in 2025. Talking about his performance on the same surface of this tournament, Choinski has a composed 195-112 win-loss record in the last years on clay.
His best result of the current season was winning the title the Troyes Challenger where he beat Calvin Hemery in the final 6-4 6-7(4) 6-2 and the Bunschoten Challenger where he beat Kimmer Coppejans in the final 6-4 3-6 6-3 and the Bad Waltersdorf Challenger where he overcame Vit Kopriva in the final 7-5 6-4.
Choinski has an overall 31-23 win-loss record in 2025, 25-14 on clay (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Valencia Challenger
Ivan Gakhov
49 - 30win/loss
263
142
| Year | Total | Hard | Clay | I.hard | Grass | Carpet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 54-36 | 3-3 | 46-29 | 5-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2024 | 36-35 | 1-2 | 35-32 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2023 | 30-30 | 2-4 | 26-21 | 2-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2022 | 56-32 | 1-3 | 53-26 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 2021 | 43-28 | 0-1 | 38-23 | 5-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
Ranked no. 288, the Russian reached the 2nd round after defeating Rudolf Molleker 7-5 7-5, Martin Krumich 6-4 2-6 6-3 and Vilius Gaubas 6-2 4-6 6-3.
In the 1st round, The Russian defeated Gaubas (6-2 4-6 6-3). During the match Gakhov scored 86 points vs Gaubas’s 71. The Russian was quite aggressive to blast 38 winners.
About the serving games, Gakhov recorded 2 aces and he committed only 2 double faults. Ivan Gakhov lost the serve twice and he saved 3 break points. Furthermore, Gakhov put 62% of his first serves in, winning 79% (38/48) of the points behind his 1st serve and 48% (14/29) on the 2nd serve. The Russian broke Gaubas 4 times after converting 57% of his break points (4/7).
Gakhov’s best result of the current year was reaching the final in M25 Santa margherita di Pula and M25 The Hague.
Gakhov has an overall 49-30 win-loss record in 2025, 41-23 on clay (See FULL STATS).
Previously in the Valencia Challenger
Previously, his best result was reaching the 2nd round in 2022. See his history.
H2H Performance in the tournament
Matches, sets, games and points
| Points | Choinski | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| Match played | 1 | 3 |
| Tot Set | 3 | 8 |
| Tot Games | 31 | 78 |
| Pts | 99-88 | 243-218 |
| Total Points | 187 | 461 |
| Winners | 44 | 108 |
| %Winners | 44% | 44% |
Choinski played 1 match while Gakhov competed in 3 matches. Gakhov started his run from the qualifications while Choinski had a direct access to the main draw. Both players lost a set in the event. Jan Choinski lost 1 set, while Ivan Gakhov dropped 2 sets. Choinski has played 5 set(s) less than Gakhov (3 vs 8). Therefore, Choinski played 47 games less than Gakhov. Choinski scored 44 winners (44% of the total points). On the other side, Gakhov managed to score 108 winners (44%).
Serve Performance
| Serve | Choinski | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| Aces | 6 | 15 |
| Avg per match | 6 | 5 |
| 1st in | 69/102 | 147/228 |
| %1st in | 68% | 64% |
| 1st pts | 44/69 | 108/147 |
| %1st pts | 64% | 73% |
| 2nd pts | 20/33 | 40/81 |
| %2nd pts | 61% | 49% |
Choinski blasted 6 aces . Gakhov struck 15 aces (5 per match). Choinski won 64% points behind his first serve. He pretty effective on his second serve to win 61% of the points. On the other side, Gakhov won 73% 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 | Choinski | Gakhov |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 6 | 12 |
| Converted | 6/8 | 12/22 |
| % Converted | 75% | 55% |
| Conceded | 8 | 22 |
| Saved | 5 | 15 |
| % Saved | 63% | 68% |
| Times Broken | 3 | 7 |
Choinski broke his opponent 6 times with a 75% conversion rate. The Brit lost his serve 3 times and he saved 63% of the break points that he conceded. Gakhov broke his opponents 12 times with a 55% conversion rate. Gakhov conceded his serve 7 times and he saved 68% of the break points that he conceded.
| Choinski | |||
| R1 Damas | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 6-72 6-3 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 3 | 3 | |
| Tot Games | 31 | 31 | |
| pts | 99-88 | 99-88 | |
| Total points | 187 | 187 | |
| Winners | 44 | 44 | |
| %Winners | 44% | 44% | |
| SERVE | |||
| Aces | 6 | 6 | |
| Double Faults | 1 | 1 | |
| 1st in | 69/102 | 69/102 | |
| % 1st in | 68% | 68% | |
| 1st pts | 44/69 | 44/69 | |
| % 1st pts | 64% | 64% | |
| 2nd pts | 20/33 | 20/33 | |
| % 2nd pts | 61% | 61% | |
| Breaks | |||
| Won | 6 | 6 | |
| Converted | 6/8 | 6/8 | |
| Converted % | 75% | 75% | |
| Conceded | 8 | 8 | |
| Saved | 5/8 | 5 | |
| Saved % | 63% | 63% | |
| Times Broken | 3 | 3 | |
| Gakhov | |||||
| Q1 Molleker | Q3 Krumich | R1 Gaubas | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 7-5 7-5 | 6-4 2-6 6-3 | 6-2 4-6 6-3 | ||
| Tot Set | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | |
| Tot Games | 24 | 27 | 27 | 78 | |
| pts | 76-67 | 81-80 | 86-71 | 243-218 | |
| Total points | 143 | 161 | 157 | 461 | |
| Winners | 33 | 37 | 38 | 108 | |
| %Winners | 43% | 46% | 44% | 44% | |
| SERVE | |||||
| Aces | 10 | 3 | 2 | 15 | |
| Double Faults | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | |
| 1st in | 43/69 | 56/82 | 48/77 | 147/228 | |
| % 1st in | 62% | 68% | 62% | 64% | |
| 1st pts | 33/43 | 37/56 | 38/48 | 108/147 | |
| % 1st pts | 77% | 66% | 79% | 73% | |
| 2nd pts | 15/26 | 11/26 | 14/29 | 40/81 | |
| % 2nd pts | 58% | 42% | 48% | 49% | |
| Breaks | |||||
| Won | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | |
| Converted | 3/7 | 5/8 | 4/7 | 12/22 | |
| Converted % | 43% | 63% | 57% | 55% | |
| Conceded | 6 | 11 | 5 | 22 | |
| Saved | 5/6 | 7/11 | 3/5 | 15 | |
| Saved % | 83% | 64% | 60% | 207% | |
| Times Broken | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | |
Tennis Scores in Valencia Challenger
- Christoph NegrituNegritu – Vit KoprivaKopriva (6-4 6-2) – See score progression
- Jan ChoinskiChoinski – Miguel DamasDamas (6-72 6-3 6-3) – See score progression
- Zdenek KolarKolar – Carlos Sanchez JoverSanchez Jover (6-4 6-2) – See score progression
- Filip Cristian JianuCristian Jianu – Cezar CretuCretu (6-1 3-6 6-4) – See score progression
- Luka PavlovicPavlovic – Bernabe Zapata MirallesZapata Miralles (2-6 6-1 6-1) – See score progression
- Dusan LajovicLajovic – Tiago PereiraPereira (6-4 6-1) – See score progression
- Luka MikrutMikrut – Alejandro Moro CanasMoro Canas (4-6 6-2 6-3) – See score progression
- Sumit NagalNagal – Daniel Merida AguilarMerida Aguilar (6-3 6-1) – See score progression
- Marco TrungellitiTrungelliti – Nerman FaticFatic (2-6 6-3 6-4) – See score progression
- Ivan GakhovGakhov – Vilius GaubasGaubas (6-2 4-6 6-3) – See score progression
- Carlos TabernerTaberner – Diego DeduraDedura (3-6 6-4 4-2 ret.) – See score progression
- Henri SquireSquire – Daniel RinconRincon (6-0 6-1) – See score progression
- Pablo Llamas RuizLlamas Ruiz – Ignacio BuseBuse (6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Albert Ramos-VinolasRamos-Vinolas – Pedro Martinez PorteroMartinez Portero (6-4 6-2) – See score progression
- Carlos Lopez MontagudLopez Montagud – Elmer MollerMoller (6-4 6-4) – See score progression
- Pol Martin TiffonMartin Tiffon – Stefano TravagliaTravaglia (7-5 1-6 7-65) – See score progression
- Sumit NagalNagal – Daniel Merida AguilarMerida Aguilar (6-3 6-1) – See score progression
- Marco TrungellitiTrungelliti – Nerman FaticFatic (2-6 6-3 6-4) – See score progression
- Luka PavlovicPavlovic – Bernabe Zapata MirallesZapata Miralles (2-6 6-1 6-1) – See score progression
- Filip Cristian JianuCristian Jianu – Cezar CretuCretu (6-1 3-6 6-4) – See score progression
- Christoph NegrituNegritu – Vit KoprivaKopriva (6-4 6-2) – See score progression
Upcoming matches in the draw
- Albert Ramos-VinolasRamos-Vinolas – Zdenek KolarKolar (0-0) – H2H and prediction
- Marco TrungellitiTrungelliti – Pol Martin TiffonMartin Tiffon (1-1) – H2H and prediction
- Jan ChoinskiChoinski – Ivan GakhovGakhov (1-0) – H2H and prediction
- Carlos Lopez MontagudLopez Montagud – (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Henri SquireSquire – Dusan LajovicLajovic (0-1) – H2H and prediction
- Luka PavlovicPavlovic – Carlos TabernerTaberner (1-1) – H2H and prediction
- Filip Cristian JianuCristian Jianu – Christoph NegrituNegritu (2-0) – H2H and prediction
- Pablo Llamas RuizLlamas Ruiz – Sumit NagalNagal (1-0) – H2H and prediction