Munich · R16 · Clay · 28 Apr 2022
Egor Gerasimov v Botic Van De Zandschulp
36–56 in points · Botic Van De Zandschulp won
Why it went the way it did
Botic Van De Zandschulp won 11.2 more points than Egor Gerasimov relative to what the serve alone predicted. Egor Gerasimov's biggest leaks: return execution −2.2, slice shot selection −1.3, net execution −1.2.
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 | Egor Gerasimov | Botic Van De Zandschulp | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | −1.0 | −1.0 | +0.1 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.2 |
| Serve 2nd | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | +0.2 | +0.1 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | +0.6 | +0.5 |
| Return | −0.1 | +0.1 | −2.2 | −2.2 | −0.2 | −0.6 | +0.5 | −0.3 |
| Forehand | +0.1 | +1.9 | −0.7 | +1.2 | +0.3 | +2.5 | +6.1 | +8.8 |
| Backhand | +0.3 | −0.9 | −1.1 | −1.7 | −0.1 | +0.2 | +1.8 | +1.9 |
| Slice | −0.1 | −1.3 | +0.2 | −1.2 | −0.1 | −3.2 | −0.5 | −3.7 |
| Net | +0.1 | +0.9 | −1.2 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | +0.4 | −0.9 | −0.5 |
| Touch | ±0.0 | −0.2 | +0.2 | −0.1 | +0.1 | −0.4 | −0.1 | −0.5 |
| All shots | +0.1 | +0.4 | −5.7 | −5.2 | −0.1 | −1.1 | +7.2 | +6.0 |
Set by set
| Set | Egor Gerasimov | Botic Van De Zandschulp | Net, Egor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1.6 | +4.8 | −6.5 | |
| 2 | −3.5 | +1.2 | −4.7 |
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.
Egor Gerasimov serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 58% 67% | 8% 0% | 35% 33% |
| 2 | 44% 82% | 12% 67% | 44% 36% |
Within sets −0.19 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Botic Van De Zandschulp serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 36% 63% | 5% 100% | 59% 85% |
| 2 | 53% 90% | 11% 100% | 37% 71% |
Within sets +0.26 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.
Egor Gerasimov
5.8 points left on the table across 216 shots 2.68 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
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×6; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.30 pts
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side, you at net hit FH volley down the line ×2; FH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.25 pts
- Serve +1: deep return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×3; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.22 pts
Botic Van De Zandschulp
5.8 points left on the table across 226 shots 2.56 per 100 shots
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side hit BH slice through the middle ×4; BH slice crosscourt rates higher · 0.29 pts
- Return +1: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×4; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.23 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: volley to your backhand side, opponent at net hit BH through the middle ×1; BH down the line rates higher · 0.21 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH drop shot through the middle + approach ×1; FH drop shot crosscourt + approach rates higher · 0.20 pts