Hamburg · SF · Clay · 16 Jul 2016
Pablo Cuevas v Renzo Olivo
80–64 in points · Pablo Cuevas won
Why it went the way it did
Pablo Cuevas won 9.0 more points than Renzo Olivo relative to what the serve alone predicted. Renzo Olivo's biggest leaks: slice shot selection −5.0, forehand execution −3.2, net execution −2.1.
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 | Pablo Cuevas | Renzo Olivo | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | −0.1 | +0.1 | −1.6 | −1.6 | −0.1 | −0.1 | −1.4 | −1.6 |
| Serve 2nd | +0.1 | +0.1 | ±0.0 | +0.2 | +0.1 | ±0.0 | −1.3 | −1.2 |
| Return | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.5 | −1.1 | −0.1 | −1.7 |
| Forehand | ±0.0 | +2.3 | −3.1 | −0.9 | −0.3 | +1.9 | −3.2 | −1.5 |
| Backhand | −0.1 | −0.3 | −0.3 | −0.7 | −0.4 | −0.2 | +1.6 | +0.9 |
| Slice | +0.1 | −1.2 | ±0.0 | −1.2 | +0.1 | −5.0 | −2.0 | −7.0 |
| Net | −0.1 | +0.1 | +0.2 | +0.2 | −0.2 | +0.9 | −2.1 | −1.3 |
| Touch | −0.1 | −0.5 | +0.2 | −0.4 | −0.2 | −0.1 | −0.1 | −0.4 |
| Other | −0.1 | −0.5 | +0.2 | −0.4 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 |
| All shots | −0.4 | +0.2 | −4.6 | −4.8 | −1.5 | −3.6 | −8.7 | −13.7 |
Set by set
| Set | Pablo Cuevas | Renzo Olivo | Net, Pablo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −2.9 | −7.0 | +4.1 | |
| 2 | −1.9 | −6.8 | +4.9 |
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.
Pablo Cuevas serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 57% 80% | 9% 67% | 34% 67% |
| 2 | 45% 67% | 18% 100% | 36% 75% |
Set to set +1.01 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +0.32 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Renzo Olivo serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 38% 78% | 17% 50% | 46% 55% |
| 2 | 54% 60% | 4% 100% | 43% 58% |
Set to set +2.85 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +1.00 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.
Pablo Cuevas
7.8 points left on the table across 284 shots 2.73 per 100 shots
- Return of a 1st serve, T, ad court hit FH through the middle ×4; FH inside-in rates higher · 0.65 pts
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×5; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.43 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle ×5; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.28 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, ad court hit BH through the middle ×7; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.27 pts
Renzo Olivo
8.6 points left on the table across 280 shots 3.06 per 100 shots
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×5; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.43 pts
- Return +1: drive to your backhand side hit BH slice through the middle ×5; BH slice crosscourt rates higher · 0.42 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side hit BH through the middle ×7; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.27 pts
- Return +1: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×4; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.23 pts