Game plan
Amanda Coetzer v Linda Fruhvirtova
Every number combines what Amanda Coetzer does well with what Linda Fruhvirtova allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
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 Coetzer serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Amanda wins | v Linda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 38% | 61% | 68% | 62.5%±11.6 | 53% ▲ |
| Body | 37% | 51% | 52% | 45.6%±12.1 | 22% ▼ |
| T | 25% | 55% | 72% | 60.2%±13.5 | 25% |
Optimal v Linda Fruhvirtova: +0.8±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +6.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Amanda wins | v Linda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 35% | 52% | 63% | 49.7%±12.8 | 34% |
| Body | 58% | 46% | 58% | 48.4%±12.6 | 43% ▼ |
| T | 7% | 61% | 65% | 61.5%±14.6 | 23% ▲ |
Optimal v Linda Fruhvirtova: +0.9±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +11.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Linda Fruhvirtova serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Linda wins | v Amanda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 67% | 62% | 63.4%±11.4 | 54% ▲ |
| Body | 14% | 63% | 60% | 65.0%±12.7 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 71% | 68% | 71.5%±10.8 | 46% ▼ |
Optimal v Amanda Coetzer: +0.2±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Linda wins | v Amanda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 68% | 68% | 70.4%±9.8 | 53% ▲ |
| Body | 16% | 52% | 52% | 48.1%±15.6 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 45% | 64% | 65% | 64.8%±12.8 | 46% |
Optimal v Amanda Coetzer: +0.9±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +6.1 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 Coetzer returning
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Linda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 52% | +7.7 | −1.3 | −2.9 | +3.5±3.6 |
| BH through the middle | 40% | +6.0 | −2.4 | +0.7 | +4.2±2.6 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +2.2 | −0.7 | +3.4 | +4.9±3.8 |
Lean BH through the middle: +0.4±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (62 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Linda Fruhvirtova returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 54% | +4.2 | +3.1 | −0.8 | +6.4±2.9 |
| FH crosscourt | 23% | +5.3 | +2.7 | +0.7 | +8.7±4.2 |
| FH down the line | 19% | +1.5 | +1.3 | +2.1 | +4.9±4.5 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −6.7 | +0.5 | ±0.0 | −6.2±1.2 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 2% | −6.6 | +0.6 | ±0.0 | −6.0±1.2 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (331 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 43% | +7.7 | +1.5 | +1.5 | +10.7±3.2 |
| BH through the middle | 42% | +6.0 | +1.6 | −0.5 | +7.2±2.3 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +2.2 | −2.2 | ±0.0 | ±0.0±3.1 |
| BH slice through the middle | 4% | −6.2 | +0.2 | +0.5 | −5.5±2.1 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 2% | −4.2 | +0.1 | +2.8 | −1.3±2.4 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.4±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (272 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | −3.2 | +2.1 | −1.4 | −2.4±2.9 |
| FH crosscourt | 35% | +0.5 | ±0.0 | −2.1 | −1.6±3.9 |
| FH down the line | 21% | −0.6 | +2.1 | +1.3 | +2.8±4.5 |
Lean FH down the line: +3.8±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (95 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Amanda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 44% | −2.6 | +0.9 | ±0.0 | −1.7±2.0 |
| BH crosscourt | 41% | +1.5 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | +1.2±2.6 |
| BH down the line | 15% | −0.5 | −0.2 | ±0.0 | −0.8±3.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (119 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
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 clay. Each player's clay record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.
Amanda Coetzer
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +3.1±4.9 | +0.7 | +2.4 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +2.5±4.3 | −1.0 | +3.5 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +1.3±4.9 | +0.7 | +0.6 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.1±3.2 | +0.5 | +0.7 |
| FH to the middle · rally | −0.1±3.6 | +1.0 | −1.1 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · rally | −0.1±3.6 | +1.0 | −1.1 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.1±3.2 | +0.5 | +0.7 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +1.3±4.9 | +0.7 | +0.6 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +2.5±4.3 | −1.0 | +3.5 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +3.1±4.9 | +0.7 | +2.4 |
Linda Fruhvirtova
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +5.9±4.7 | +2.7 | +3.3 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +3.3±4.4 | +2.2 | +1.1 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +3.3±4.6 | +3.4 | −0.1 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | +3.3±4.6 | +3.4 | −0.1 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +3.3±4.4 | +2.2 | +1.1 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +5.9±4.7 | +2.7 | +3.3 |
Against Linda Fruhvirtova-like opponents
| Amanda Coetzer v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 41.1% | 37.7% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Magdalena Frech, Jaqueline Cristian, Victoria Azarenka, Caroline Wozniacki, Qiang Wang, Simona Halep, Tsvetana Pironkova, Vera Zvonareva, Agnieszka Radwanska, Dinara Safina. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.