Mika Lipp vs Facundo Yunis Head-to-Head Stats, Results & Performance Comparison

Wojtek Kolan

Wojtek Kolan

Published on 13 Aug at 03:55 PM UTC

HEAD TO HEAD

M. Lipp vs F. Yunis

Mika Lipp
Mika Lipp

Flag GER GER

w
l
l
w
w
l
l
w
l
l
Facundo Yunis
Facundo Yunis

Flag GER GER

w
w
l
l
w
w
w
l
w
l

1

Win

2

Played

1

Win

22
Age
23
-
Height
-
0
C. Rank
0
0
Best Rank
0
0
Total Titles
0
0
YTD Titles
0
$0
Career Money
$0
-
Plays
-

Head-to-head: Lipp 1 - 1 Yunis

They have played 4 sets in total, with Mika Lipp winning 2 and Facundo Yunis winning 2. The last match between Mika Lipp and Facundo Yunis was at the M15 Trier, 13-08-2025, Round: R1, Surface: Clay, with Mika Lipp getting the victory 6-3 6-2.

PlayersHead To Head Match Wins
Lipp1
Yunis1
Last 2 H2H Matches:

(R1M15 Trier(08-13-25)

Clay
GER Flag
Mika Lipp
6
6
GER Flag
Facundo Yunis
3
2

(Q1M15 Frankfurt am Main(08-07-23)

Clay
GER Flag
Facundo Yunis
6
6
GER Flag
Mika Lipp
4
4

M. Lipp vs F. Yunis H2H Profile

Stats
$0Career Prize Money$0
52.27% (69-63)Career Total W/L53.76% (93-80)
1Clay1
1Total H2H Matches1
0% (0-0)YTD Win/Loss0% (0-0)

M. Lipp vs F. Yunis Match Preview:

  • Yunis has a stronger second serve performance, winning 55.17% of points compared to Lipp's 40.7%. How significant is this? Very, as it often correlates with match outcomes.
  • In breaking down return games, Lipp has the edge with 50.68% success on winning opponents' second serve points as opposed to Yunis's 41.38%. This skill is crucial for gaining match control.
  • Considering first serve returns, Yunis shows better ability, winning 39.29% relative to Lipp's 34.14%.
  • When under pressure, Lipp excels in saving breakpoints, with a 50.24% success rate compared to Yunis's 28.57%.
  • Both players have an overall win rate around 54% in the past year, indicating similar levels of recent success.
  • On clay surfaces, Yunis slightly outperforms Lipp, winning 56% of his matches, while Lipp secures 54%.
  • Both have a level playing experience, frequently competing in Futures/Satellites/ITF tournaments.
  • Yunis has dominated direct encounters, winning their sole match against Lipp in straight sets.
  • Lipp has faced opponents with lower average rankings (257.72) compared to Yunis (56), potentially skewing win/loss records.
  • If the match reaches a deciding set, Lipp has historically performed better, winning 38% compared to Yunis's 25% success in past engagements.
  • When opportunities arise, Yunis converts 57.14% of breakpoints into game wins, which is notably higher than Lipp's 40.32% conversion rate.

Editorial Prediction (August 13, 2025, UTC):

The upcoming match presents a compelling duel between Yunis and Lipp, each with distinct strengths. Yunis's pronounced advantage lies in second serve proficiency and effective breakpoint conversion, providing a strong foundation under pressure.

Conversely, Lipp's adeptness at returning opponents' serves and saving breakpoints showcases a formidable defensive strategy. Despite previous losses to Yunis, Lipp's potential to disrupt serve games remains noteworthy.

Ultimately, considering overall capabilities and past head-to-head results, Yunis appears better positioned to secure victory in the upcoming match.

Mika Lipp vs Facundo Yunis Editorial Preview By TennisTipster88.

M. Lipp vs F. Yunis H2H Stats Used In Our Predictions

Stats
1H2H Matches Won1
2Sets Won2
20Games Won17
0Aces (Total)1
5Total Double Faults8
0:43:21Average Match Time0:43:21
60% (27/45)1st Serve %71% (50/70)
81% (22/27)1st Serve Win %60% (30/50)
44% (8/18)2nd Serve Win %10% (2/20)
50% (6/12)Break Pts Won %50% (2/4)
54% (38/70)Return Points Win %33% (15/45)
50% (1/2)Best‑of‑3 Win %50% (1/2)
100% (1/1)1st Set Won, Won Match100% (1/1)
0% (0/1)1st Set Won, Lost Match0% (0/1)
0% (0/1)1st Set Lost, Won Match0% (0/1)

Recent Performance Stats

2nd Serve Win %: Lipp 46%, Yunis 37%.
Opp 2nd Serve Pts Won: Lipp 57%, Yunis 47%.
Break Points Saved %: Lipp 52%, Yunis 42%.

M. Lipp Recent Matches Played

OPPONENTRESULTSCOREH2H
I.hardM15 Offenbach - 13-10-2025

R1

NEDJ. De
L
6-3 6-2

Q3

NEDJ. De
L
7-6(0) 7-6(5)

Q1

GERK. Mathes
W
3-6 6-4 10-6
ClayM15 Haren - 01-09-2025

R1

BRAJ. Victor
L
7-5 3-6 6-3
ClayM15 Allershausen - 25-08-2025

QF

ESPI. Lopez
L
6-3 6-2

F. Yunis Recent Matches Played

OPPONENTRESULTSCOREH2H
ClayM15 Trier - 11-08-2025

R1

GERM. Lipp
L
6-3 6-2

Q3

CROA. Voljavec
W
6-2 7-5

Q1

N/AU. Player
W
w/o
ClayM15 Wels - 28-07-2025

R1

UKRT. Bieldiugin
L
3-6 6-3 6-3

Q3

AUSS. Bianchet
W
6-1 6-2
banner

M. Lipp vs F. Yunis Stats Breakdown Vs All H2H Opponents

Stats
52.27% (69/63)YTD Win/Loss53.76% (93/80)
52.86% (157/140)Sets Win/Loss54.45% (214/179)
51.66% (1449/1356)Games Win/Loss52.55% (1934/1746)
53.33% (8/7)Hard Win/Loss50.00% (25/25)
53.10% (60/53)Clay Win/Loss55.93% (66/52)
25.00% (1/3)Indoor Hard W/L40.00% (2/3)
0.05Aces Per Game0.05
72Aces Total85
0.17Double Faults Per Game0.16
231Total Double Faults294
1:1:23Average Match Time1st Match
280.49Average Opponent Rank249.06
66% (3438/5219)1st Serve %64% (3300/5119)
60% (2053/3438)1st Serve Win %60% (1987/3300)
47% (843/1781)2nd Serve Win %46% (828/1819)
46% (255/559)Break Points Won % (Total)47% (266/569)
42% (2183/5153)Return Points Win %43% (2195/5112)
0.00% (0/1)Challenger W/L0% (0/0)
52.67% (69/62)Futures W/L53.76% (93/80)
53% (69/131)Best of 3 Sets Win %54% (92/171)
0% (0/1)Best of 5 Sets Win %0% (0/1)
44% (8/18)Tiebreaks Win % (Total)47% (18/38)
44% (14/32)Deciding Set Win %43% (20/47)
92% (65/60)1st Set Won, Won Match86% (92/79)
8% (65/5)1st Set Won, Lost Match14% (92/13)
13% (67/9)1st Set Lost, Won Match19% (81/15)

Other Tennis Predictions Today

Sat, 29 Nov, 03:30 PM
Prediction
ARGN. G. Longo
BRAJ. Pereira2
W1
3.48
W2
1.25
Sat, 29 Nov, 02:45 PM
Prediction
BLRA. Faleiq
ROUE. G. Ruse2
W1
2.88
W2
1.35
Sat, 29 Nov, 05:00 PM
Prediction
HUNP. Udvardy3
SLOV. Erjavec6
W1
1.56
W2
2.24
Sat, 29 Nov, 04:30 PM
Prediction
BRAN. V. L. D. Silva7
SUIM. Mettraux6
W1
1.175
W2
4.25
Sat, 29 Nov, 08:00 PM
Prediction
ARGJ. P. Ficovich1
COLJ. S. Gomezq
W1
1.165
W2
4.4
Sat, 29 Nov, 02:45 PM
Prediction
GBRT. Samuel
FRAM. Bobichonq
W1
1.26
W2
3.4