Wimbledon · SF · Grass · 1 Jul 2005
Amelie Mauresmo v Lindsay Davenport
107–111 in points · Lindsay Davenport won
Why it went the way it did
Lindsay Davenport won 2.0 more points than Amelie Mauresmo relative to what the serve alone predicted. Amelie Mauresmo's biggest leaks: slice shot selection −4.6, serve 1st execution −3.6, return shot selection −2.7.
Each shot moves its hitter's chance of winning the point. Those moves are split into direction choice, shot selection and execution, and summed here. Read both columns together: one player's gain is the other's loss.
| Shot | Amelie Mauresmo | Lindsay Davenport | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | +0.7 | +4.8 | −3.6 | +1.9 | +0.5 | −0.3 | +0.6 | +0.8 |
| Serve 2nd | +0.2 | ±0.0 | +0.1 | +0.2 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −0.8 | −0.9 |
| Return | −0.4 | −2.7 | −0.5 | −3.7 | +0.1 | +1.1 | −2.6 | −1.4 |
| Forehand | +0.5 | +1.5 | +2.4 | +4.4 | +0.9 | +1.8 | −4.6 | −1.9 |
| Backhand | +0.2 | +0.8 | +0.8 | +1.8 | +0.6 | +1.1 | +3.4 | +5.2 |
| Slice | ±0.0 | −4.6 | +0.7 | −4.0 | +0.1 | −0.7 | −0.3 | −0.9 |
| Net | +0.3 | +0.1 | +0.6 | +1.1 | +0.2 | +1.0 | +2.1 | +3.3 |
| Touch | ±0.0 | −0.3 | +1.0 | +0.7 | +0.3 | −0.7 | +0.7 | +0.3 |
| All shots | +1.5 | −0.4 | +1.4 | +2.4 | +2.6 | +3.4 | −1.6 | +4.5 |
Set by set
| Set | Amelie Mauresmo | Lindsay Davenport | Net, Amelie | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +2.7 | −0.4 | +3.1 | |
| 2 | −0.3 | +2.8 | −3.1 | |
| 3 | +0.1 | +2.1 | −2.0 |
Adaptation
First-serve direction mix set by set, with the share of points each direction won. The scores measure whether the server moved toward the directions that had been winning earlier in this match, set to set and every two to three service games, in points per 100 first serves. Read them as a habit, not a gain: across the tour, a direction's edge in early sets barely predicts the later ones. Whether the returner responded can't be told apart from noise within one match.
Amelie Mauresmo serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40% 53% | 15% 71% | 45% 62% |
| 2 | 55% 57% | 2% 100% | 43% 44% |
| 3 | 48% 67% | 6% 100% | 45% 64% |
Set to set −1.53 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −0.53 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Lindsay Davenport serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 41% 40% | 14% 40% | 46% 65% |
| 2 | 29% 50% | 3% 100% | 69% 63% |
| 3 | 16% 67% | 5% 100% | 79% 87% |
Set to set +3.76 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +2.58 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Counterfactual: the best direction every time
If each shot had gone in the direction that is usually worth most for that stroke and position, this is how many more points each player would expect to win. It's an upper bound: the best direction isn't always on, and the chart can't see the ball's pace or position.
Amelie Mauresmo
8.5 points left on the table across 282 shots 3.00 per 100 shots
- Serve +1: drive to your middle, you at net hit FH volley down the line ×3; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.46 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×7; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.38 pts
- Return +1: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×5; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.32 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, T, ad court hit FH slice through the middle ×10; FH slice crosscourt rates higher · 0.29 pts
Lindsay Davenport
7.1 points left on the table across 302 shots 2.34 per 100 shots
- Return of a 1st serve, T, ad court, server rushing the net hit FH through the middle ×8; FH down the line rates higher · 0.82 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, ad court, server rushing the net hit BH through the middle ×8; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.50 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, wide, ad court hit BH down the line ×3; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.32 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH volley through the middle ×1; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.32 pts