Rotterdam · QF · Hard · 13 Feb 2026
Botic Van De Zandschulp v Alex De Minaur
108–111 in points · Alex De Minaur won
Why it went the way it did
Alex De Minaur won 5.0 more points than Botic Van De Zandschulp relative to what the serve alone predicted. Botic Van De Zandschulp's biggest leaks: forehand execution −4.2, slice shot selection −3.6, serve 2nd execution −2.4.
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 | Botic Van De Zandschulp | Alex De Minaur | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | −0.3 | −0.1 | −1.5 | −1.9 | −1.0 | −0.2 | −1.9 | −3.1 |
| Serve 2nd | ±0.0 | −0.1 | −2.4 | −2.4 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −0.3 | −0.5 |
| Return | +0.1 | +0.3 | −0.9 | −0.6 | +0.1 | +0.6 | −3.0 | −2.3 |
| Forehand | −0.2 | +6.9 | −4.2 | +2.4 | −0.5 | +4.0 | −2.8 | +0.7 |
| Backhand | −0.8 | +0.7 | −1.4 | −1.5 | −0.5 | +1.1 | +0.7 | +1.3 |
| Slice | −0.7 | −3.6 | +0.1 | −4.2 | ±0.0 | −3.0 | +0.3 | −2.7 |
| Net | −0.2 | +0.1 | −1.3 | −1.4 | +0.4 | +0.3 | −0.2 | +0.5 |
| Touch | −0.1 | −0.5 | −1.3 | −1.9 | +0.1 | −1.3 | +0.7 | −0.4 |
| All shots | −2.1 | +3.6 | −12.9 | −11.5 | −1.6 | +1.5 | −6.4 | −6.5 |
Set by set
| Set | Botic Van De Zandschulp | Alex De Minaur | Net, Botic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −3.2 | −5.6 | +2.4 | |
| 2 | −6.9 | −2.0 | −4.8 | |
| 3 | −1.4 | +1.1 | −2.5 |
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.
Botic Van De Zandschulp serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 39% 91% | 21% 83% | 39% 55% |
| 2 | 33% 53% | 15% 75% | 52% 67% |
| 3 | 44% 53% | 10% 50% | 46% 61% |
Set to set −1.96 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets −0.67 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Alex De Minaur serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25% 50% | 33% 75% | 42% 70% |
| 2 | 37% 94% | 28% 75% | 35% 53% |
| 3 | 38% 75% | 31% 70% | 31% 40% |
Set to set +0.76 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +0.28 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.
Botic Van De Zandschulp
12.6 points left on the table across 515 shots 2.45 per 100 shots
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side, you at net hit BH volley through the middle ×3; BH volley crosscourt rates higher · 0.78 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side hit BH through the middle ×17; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.66 pts
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×10; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.55 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×10; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.51 pts
Alex De Minaur
11.7 points left on the table across 506 shots 2.30 per 100 shots
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×14; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.71 pts
- Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side hit FH through the middle ×12; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.66 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle ×10; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.57 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, T, ad court hit FH down the line ×6; FH inside-out rates higher · 0.51 pts