Wimbledon · Q2 · Grass · 24 Jun 2026
Jil Teichmann v Bianca Andreescu
84–100 in points · Bianca Andreescu won
Why it went the way it did
Bianca Andreescu won 7.4 more points than Jil Teichmann relative to what the serve alone predicted. Jil Teichmann's biggest leaks: return execution −6.6, slice shot selection −3.5, backhand direction choices −0.7.
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 | Jil Teichmann | Bianca Andreescu | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | Dir | Sel | Exec | Total | |
| Serve 1st | −0.6 | ±0.0 | +1.1 | +0.6 | −0.2 | +0.2 | +1.9 | +1.9 |
| Serve 2nd | −0.1 | ±0.0 | +0.5 | +0.4 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | −0.8 | −0.8 |
| Return | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | −6.6 | −6.6 | +0.1 | +1.0 | +2.5 | +3.5 |
| Forehand | −0.5 | +1.9 | +2.2 | +3.7 | +0.1 | +2.3 | +2.1 | +4.6 |
| Backhand | −0.7 | +0.4 | +1.3 | +1.0 | −0.2 | +0.4 | −0.5 | −0.3 |
| Slice | +0.1 | −3.5 | −0.2 | −3.6 | −0.4 | −2.8 | −0.5 | −3.7 |
| Net | −0.1 | +0.3 | +0.9 | +1.1 | +0.3 | +0.6 | −1.4 | −0.6 |
| Touch | −0.3 | −0.4 | +0.1 | −0.6 | −0.2 | −0.1 | −0.8 | −1.2 |
| All shots | −2.1 | −1.2 | −0.6 | −4.0 | −0.6 | +1.6 | +2.5 | +3.4 |
Set by set
| Set | Jil Teichmann | Bianca Andreescu | Net, Jil | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +1.4 | +0.3 | +1.1 | |
| 2 | −3.8 | +3.7 | −7.5 | |
| 3 | −1.6 | −0.6 | −1.0 |
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.
Jil Teichmann serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27% 58% | 27% 58% | 47% 57% |
| 2 | – | 46% 17% | 54% 43% |
| 3 | 33% 55% | 30% 70% | 36% 50% |
Set to set −0.02 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +2.44 per 100 first serves, every two to three service games
Bianca Andreescu serving
| Set | Wide | Body | T |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 43% 41% | 23% 67% | 35% 64% |
| 2 | 58% 73% | 26% 80% | 16% 100% |
| 3 | 55% 72% | 27% 44% | 18% 50% |
Set to set +0.31 per 100 first serves in sets 2+
Within sets +0.48 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.
Jil Teichmann
9.1 points left on the table across 245 shots 3.72 per 100 shots
- Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×6; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.51 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, wide, deuce court hit BH through the middle ×5; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.40 pts
- Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle ×4; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.28 pts
- Serve +1: short return to your middle hit BH through the middle ×3; BH down the line rates higher · 0.26 pts
Bianca Andreescu
7.9 points left on the table across 260 shots 3.03 per 100 shots
- Return +1: drive to your middle hit FH through the middle ×7; FH down the line rates higher · 0.45 pts
- Return of a 2nd serve, body, ad court hit BH through the middle ×6; BH crosscourt rates higher · 0.35 pts
- Return of a 1st serve, T, deuce court hit BH down the line ×4; BH through the middle rates higher · 0.34 pts
- Serve +1: deep return to your middle hit FH through the middle ×4; FH crosscourt rates higher · 0.24 pts