Game plan

Alina Korneeva v Tatjana Maria

Every number combines what Alina Korneeva does well with what Tatjana Maria allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Alina Korneeva wins, best of 3 63%90%: 25%–91% · best of 5: 66%

Serve points won 57.9% / 55.4% Alina / Tatjana · tour 58.1%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 63%serve 57.9% / 55.4%

Each player's serve and return strength is fitted against every opponent they were charted against, so a record built on weak opponents counts for less. At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers. The result is then nudged by Alina Korneeva's record against Tatjana Maria's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads. A game-by-game Markov chain turns point odds into match odds; the 90% range covers the uncertainty in the two strengths, not the nudges. Charted matches lean toward big events, so treat this as a scouting estimate, not a betting line.

Head to head, per 100 shots

Career	Alina	Tatjana
Direction choice	−0.01 ±0.10 better than 51%	+0.17 ±0.11 better than 82%
Shot selection	+0.25 ±0.25 better than 73%	−4.80 ±0.55 better than 0%
Execution	+0.66 ±0.76 better than 84%	+1.80 ±0.44 better than 98%
Points left on the table	2.48 ±0.14 lower than 67%	3.32 ±0.20 lower than 3%

Each player's career against an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for opponent strength, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Points left on the table is the gap to the best-value direction for the same stroke, so lower is better. Percentiles are within each player's own tour. A side is highlighted only when the gap is larger than the margin on the difference.

Structural compatibility

Expected edge per 100 rally shots from style alone: Alina Korneeva −2.31, Tatjana Maria +2.20. Each player's shot mix weighted by their own skill with each shot and by how much the other gives up against it. This is why some rankings gaps don't hold in a given matchup.

Serve plan

The share of points the server wins when a first serve lands in that direction (hover a rate for its 90% interval; ± is the 90% margin). "Matchup" combines the server's rate with how this returner handles that serve. "Optimal" is the mix that wins most against this returner once they start reading a habit, at the response measured across the tour, and only within the range servers' habits actually vary. The gain over the current mix is how exploitable that mix is.

Alina Korneeva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Alina wins	v Tatjana	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	36%	66%	61%	61.2%±9.4	35%
Body	36%	54%	61%	57.2%±9.7	21% ▼
T	29%	66%	66%	64.5%±9.7	44% ▲

Optimal v Tatjana Maria: +0.5±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Alina wins	v Tatjana	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	59%	58%	51.8%±8.9	41% ▼
Body	26%	62%	58%	64.2%±10.1	22% ▼
T	26%	70%	56%	61.9%±10.9	37% ▲

Optimal v Tatjana Maria: ±0.0±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +6.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Tatjana Maria serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tatjana wins	v Alina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	38%	70%	60%	64.3%±8.2	54% ▲
Body	14%	60%	52%	54.8%±11.6	0% ▼
T	47%	75%	64%	71.7%±9.1	46% ▼

Optimal v Alina Korneeva: +0.7±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tatjana wins	v Alina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	24%	74%	60%	69.9%±9.9	39% ▲
Body	11%	54%	51%	48.9%±12.2	0% ▼
T	65%	68%	51%	55.1%±9.2	61% ▼

Optimal v Alina Korneeva: +0.6±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +12.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Return plan

Value of each return, in points per 100 returns against an average return of the same serve (direction, court, surface): the tour's result with that return, the returner's own edge with it, and what this server gives up when it comes back to that side. Returns with no charted direction are left out, so values compare with each other rather than with zero. Depth isn't a choice here: missed returns have no depth. Serve quality isn't charted, so a block through the middle partly reflects the serve that forced it.

Alina Korneeva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
FH through the middle	42%	+4.2	+2.6	−0.1	+6.6±2.9
FH crosscourt	33%	+5.3	+1.8	+0.4	+7.5±4.4
FH slice through the middle	10%	−6.7	+0.8	±0.0	−5.9±2.5
FH down the line	9%	+1.5	+2.4	−6.0	−2.2±4.4
FH slice crosscourt	6%	−6.6	+0.7	−2.5	−8.4±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (206 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
BH through the middle	61%	+6.0	+2.3	−2.0	+6.4±2.8
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	+1.9	−2.5	+7.1±3.6
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+0.5	−6.2	−3.5±4.3
BH slice through the middle	4%	−6.2	−0.8	+0.3	−6.8±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.3±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (127 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
FH crosscourt	46%	+0.5	+0.3	+3.2	+4.0±4.3
FH through the middle	30%	−3.2	+0.3	+0.4	−2.5±2.7
FH down the line	24%	−0.6	+3.7	−0.1	+3.1±4.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.2±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (50 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
BH crosscourt	44%	+1.5	−0.8	±0.0	+0.7±3.5
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+0.2	+2.2	−0.2±2.6
BH down the line	19%	−0.5	−4.1	−1.1	−5.8±4.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (52 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Tatjana Maria returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alina	Value
FH slice through the middle	44%	−6.7	+3.5	+0.1	−3.2±2.2
FH slice crosscourt	19%	−6.6	+4.2	+0.4	−2.1±2.5
FH through the middle	14%	+4.2	−3.2	+0.2	+1.2±3.1
FH crosscourt	11%	+5.3	+0.7	+1.2	+7.2±4.3
FH slice down the line	9%	−10.5	+3.7	±0.0	−6.8±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.6±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (254 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alina	Value
BH slice through the middle	46%	−6.2	+4.6	±0.0	−1.6±2.0
BH slice crosscourt	31%	−4.2	+3.2	±0.0	−1.0±2.0
BH slice down the line	9%	−12.5	+3.9	−0.2	−8.8±3.0
BH through the middle	8%	+6.0	−1.0	+1.6	+6.6±2.7
BH crosscourt	4%	+7.7	+0.9	−0.2	+8.4±3.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +9.3±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (356 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alina	Value
FH slice through the middle	33%	−15.2	+3.0	±0.0	−12.2±1.8
FH crosscourt	25%	+0.5	−0.4	+1.2	+1.3±4.2
FH through the middle	16%	−3.2	−0.3	+2.4	−1.1±2.7
FH slice crosscourt	14%	−14.9	+1.4	±0.0	−13.5±1.6
FH slice down the line	12%	−14.1	+1.2	±0.0	−12.9±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.6±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (76 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alina	Value
BH slice through the middle	34%	−11.7	+1.2	±0.0	−10.4±1.7
BH slice crosscourt	30%	−7.5	+0.2	±0.0	−7.3±2.1
BH through the middle	7%	−2.6	−0.5	+1.5	−1.5±2.6
BH slice down the line	7%	−10.6	+4.5	±0.0	−6.1±2.6
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	−1.3	−1.8	−3.6±4.7

Lean BH through the middle: +4.7±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (202 returns charted)

Rally plan

Edge, in points per 100 shots: the hitter's skill with the shot (own) plus how much the receiver usually gives up against it (theirs), both measured against the tour average on grass. Each player's grass record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Alina Korneeva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	+3.9±5.2	+3.6	+0.2
FH to the middle · return	+1.8±3.4	+2.5	−0.7
BH to the middle · return	+0.9±3.2	+1.1	−0.2
FH to the middle · serve +1	−0.9±3.3	+2.2	−3.1
FH to their backhand · rally	−1.3±4.2	+1.8	−3.1
FH to their backhand · return +1	−1.5±5.1	−0.6	−1.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−9.0±4.5	−4.2	−4.8
BH to their forehand · return	−8.5±5.6	−1.6	−6.9
BH to their backhand · rally	−7.5±3.6	−1.0	−6.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−4.7±4.8	+2.3	−7.0
BH to their forehand · rally	−4.1±5.5	−1.1	−3.0

Tatjana Maria

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to the middle · rally	+4.0±2.7	+1.7	+2.2
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+3.8±3.3	+3.9	−0.1
FH to the middle · rally	+3.8±2.5	+0.5	+3.2
FH to their forehand · return	+2.8±4.5	+1.3	+1.5
FH to their forehand · rally	+1.9±4.0	+1.2	+0.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+0.1±5.1	+1.8	−1.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · return	−4.8±3.5	−5.4	+0.6
FH to their backhand · rally	−2.3±3.7	−0.9	−1.4
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−1.5±4.0	+0.8	−2.3
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+0.1±5.1	+1.8	−1.7
FH to their forehand · rally	+1.9±4.0	+1.2	+0.7

Against Tatjana Maria-like opponents

Alina Korneeva v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	54.6%	50.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Karolina Muchova, Viktorija Golubic, Diane Parry, Alison Van Uytvanck, Kirsten Flipkens, Ashleigh Barty, Francesca Schiavone, Roberta Vinci, Justine Henin, Amelie Mauresmo. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.