Roland Garros · R64 · Clay · 1 Oct 2020
Julia Goerges v Laura Siegemund
72–72 in points · Laura Siegemund won
Why it went the way it did
Julia Goerges won 0.7 more points than Laura Siegemund relative to what the serve alone predicted. Laura Siegemund's biggest leaks: serve 2nd execution −4.7, return execution −2.1, slice shot selection −1.7.
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 | Julia Goerges | Laura Siegemund | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | +0.4 | +0.1 | −1.9 | −1.4 | −0.7 | ±0.0 | −1.0 | −1.6 |
| Serve 2nd | +0.1 | ±0.0 | +2.0 | +2.1 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −4.7 | −4.7 |
| Return | −0.1 | +0.7 | −3.6 | −2.9 | +0.1 | −0.1 | −2.1 | −2.1 |
| Forehand | +0.4 | +2.2 | −4.1 | −1.5 | +0.1 | +1.5 | +0.4 | +2.0 |
| Backhand | −0.2 | +0.5 | +0.3 | +0.6 | +0.3 | +0.5 | −0.5 | +0.2 |
| Slice | ±0.0 | −1.0 | −0.4 | −1.4 | +0.1 | −1.7 | +1.1 | −0.5 |
| Net | −0.2 | +0.3 | −0.3 | −0.2 | ±0.0 | +0.1 | −0.3 | −0.3 |
| Touch | +0.2 | +0.2 | −0.7 | −0.4 | −0.2 | +0.1 | +1.3 | +1.2 |
| All shots | +0.5 | +3.0 | −8.6 | −5.1 | −0.4 | +0.3 | −5.7 | −5.8 |
Set by set
| Set | Julia Goerges | Laura Siegemund | Net, Julia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +3.8 | −2.9 | +6.7 | |
| 2 | −8.6 | −3.5 | −5.1 | |
| 3 | −0.3 | +0.6 | −0.9 |
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.
Julia Goerges serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60% 75% | 5% 100% | 35% 29% |
| 2 | 35% 33% | 15% 25% | 50% 46% |
| 3 | 50% 58% | 4% 100% | 46% 73% |
Set to set +1.18 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −0.81 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Laura Siegemund serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 43% 17% | 43% 0% | 14% 50% |
| 2 | 30% 60% | 58% 58% | 12% 50% |
| 3 | 50% 62% | 27% 71% | 23% 83% |
Set to set −0.41 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −0.35 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.
Julia Goerges
4.9 points left on the table across 192 shots 2.56 per 100 shots
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side, you at net hit FH volley through the middle ×2; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.50 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, body, deuce court hit FH through the middle ×4; FH down the line rates higher · 0.28 pts
- Long rally, 9+: slice to your forehand side, opponent at net, you at net hit FH volley through the middle ×1; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.21 pts
- Return +1: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle + approach ×1; FH down the line + approach rates higher · 0.19 pts
Laura Siegemund
4.6 points left on the table across 176 shots 2.62 per 100 shots
- Long rally, 9+: slice to your middle, you at net hit BH volley through the middle ×1; BH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.25 pts
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle hit BH through the middle ×3; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.18 pts
- Serve +1: deep return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×3; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.18 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, ad court, server rushing the net hit BH through the middle ×1; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.17 pts