Game plan
Amanda Anisimova v Daniela Hantuchova
Every number combines what Amanda Anisimova does well with what Daniela Hantuchova allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Amanda Anisimova's record against Daniela Hantuchova's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +1.1 on serve, ±0.0 on return vs expectation (891 points)). 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 | Amanda | Daniela |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.21 ±0.05 better than 87% | +0.36 ±0.08 better than 97% |
| Shot selection | +0.22 ±0.06 better than 69% | +0.10 ±0.14 better than 55% |
| Execution | −1.05 ±0.38 better than 17% | +0.31 ±0.66 better than 73% |
| Points left on the table | 2.27 ±0.06 lower than 88% | 2.27 ±0.10 lower than 87% |
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.
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.
Amanda Anisimova serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Amanda wins | v Daniela | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 63% | 67% | 64.0%±6.6 | 41% |
| Body | 18% | 58% | 57% | 57.8%±8.4 | 3% ▼ |
| T | 42% | 64% | 76% | 73.3%±6.5 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Daniela Hantuchova: +0.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Amanda wins | v Daniela | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 52% | 66% | 68% | 68.9%±6.4 | 67% ▲ |
| Body | 17% | 57% | 56% | 57.2%±9.6 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 31% | 66% | 61% | 62.2%±7.0 | 32% |
Optimal v Daniela Hantuchova: +0.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Daniela Hantuchova serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniela wins | v Amanda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 70% | 64% | 68.3%±5.9 | 64% ▲ |
| Body | 13% | 54% | 57% | 53.2%±9.9 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 60% | 69% | 61.6%±6.9 | 36% ▼ |
Optimal v Amanda Anisimova: +0.4±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniela wins | v Amanda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 47% | 70% | 68% | 72.0%±5.8 | 62% ▲ |
| Body | 9% | 53% | 51% | 47.9%±11.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 63% | 61% | 59.5%±6.8 | 38% ▼ |
Optimal v Amanda Anisimova: +1.4±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.7 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.
Amanda Anisimova returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniela | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 46% | +4.2 | +0.5 | −0.2 | +4.5±2.3 |
| FH crosscourt | 28% | +5.3 | −1.6 | −2.0 | +1.7±3.7 |
| FH down the line | 21% | +1.5 | +0.8 | −0.4 | +2.0±4.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 3% | −6.7 | −2.6 | +0.2 | −9.1±2.5 |
| FH slice down the line | 1% | −10.5 | −1.2 | ±0.0 | −11.7±2.0 |
Lean FH through the middle: +1.9±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (1188 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniela | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 39% | +6.0 | −3.3 | +1.9 | +4.7±2.2 |
| BH crosscourt | 33% | +7.7 | −4.0 | −1.7 | +2.1±3.1 |
| BH down the line | 14% | +2.2 | −0.5 | −3.3 | −1.7±4.4 |
| BH slice through the middle | 7% | −6.2 | −1.9 | −0.8 | −9.0±2.5 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 4% | −4.2 | −1.3 | −1.6 | −7.1±2.6 |
Lean BH through the middle: +3.6±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (967 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniela | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 36% | −3.2 | −4.1 | +1.3 | −6.0±2.9 |
| FH crosscourt | 32% | +0.5 | −0.6 | +1.2 | +1.1±4.1 |
| FH down the line | 31% | −0.6 | +0.7 | +3.3 | +3.5±5.0 |
Lean FH down the line: +4.2±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (373 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniela | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 52% | +1.5 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | +1.2±3.2 |
| BH through the middle | 29% | −2.6 | −3.9 | +0.6 | −6.0±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 19% | −0.5 | +1.5 | +2.2 | +3.2±5.2 |
Lean BH down the line: +3.7±4.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (410 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Daniela Hantuchova returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 34% | +4.2 | −1.1 | +0.3 | +3.4±2.5 |
| FH crosscourt | 32% | +5.3 | +2.2 | −0.9 | +6.6±3.8 |
| FH down the line | 27% | +1.5 | −1.4 | +1.9 | +2.1±4.3 |
| FH slice through the middle | 7% | −6.7 | +0.5 | −0.4 | −6.6±2.2 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.2±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (246 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 33% | +6.0 | +0.5 | +0.3 | +6.9±2.3 |
| BH slice through the middle | 24% | −6.2 | +0.8 | +0.7 | −4.7±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 18% | +7.7 | +0.2 | −0.3 | +7.6±3.0 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +2.2 | +1.3 | −1.7 | +1.8±3.8 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 10% | −4.2 | −2.6 | −0.1 | −6.8±2.9 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +6.4±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (188 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 39% | +0.5 | +0.9 | −1.8 | −0.3±4.1 |
| FH through the middle | 39% | −3.2 | +0.8 | −1.6 | −4.0±2.7 |
| FH down the line | 22% | −0.6 | −1.1 | −6.7 | −8.3±4.7 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.2±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (105 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 47% | +1.5 | +1.5 | −1.5 | +1.5±3.2 |
| BH through the middle | 43% | −2.6 | −0.5 | ±0.0 | −3.1±2.3 |
| BH down the line | 10% | −0.5 | −0.1 | −5.7 | −6.4±4.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (110 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.
Amanda Anisimova
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | +2.6±4.0 | +1.6 | +1.0 |
| FH to their backhand · return | +2.5±3.5 | +0.9 | +1.5 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.1±3.3 | −1.8 | +3.9 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +2.0±3.6 | +1.0 | +1.0 |
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | +1.9±4.2 | +1.3 | +0.6 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | +1.7±2.9 | +1.9 | −0.2 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | −5.0±2.5 | −2.6 | −2.3 |
| FH to the middle · return +1 | −4.6±2.5 | −3.4 | −1.2 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | −4.4±2.1 | −3.2 | −1.3 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | −4.3±2.3 | −4.5 | +0.2 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | −4.0±2.3 | −3.7 | −0.3 |
Daniela Hantuchova
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to the middle · return | +1.4±1.8 | +0.9 | +0.5 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +1.2±2.4 | +2.1 | −0.9 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | +0.8±2.3 | +1.1 | −0.3 |
| FH to their forehand · return | +0.6±3.4 | +1.9 | −1.3 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +0.5±2.7 | +0.9 | −0.4 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | −0.2±3.0 | +1.6 | −1.8 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | −5.7±3.7 | −2.7 | −3.0 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −4.5±3.6 | −1.9 | −2.6 |
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.5±4.4 | −3.1 | −1.4 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −4.0±3.8 | −2.1 | −1.9 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −3.9±3.2 | −2.4 | −1.4 |
Against Daniela Hantuchova-like opponents
| Amanda Anisimova v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 57.6% | 44.8% |
| Players most similar to Daniela Hantuchova | 7 | 57.7% | 43.4% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Talia Gibson, Ekaterina Alexandrova, Sorana Cirstea, Aryna Sabalenka, Serena Williams, Viktoria Hruncakova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Danielle Collins, Jelena Dokic. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.