Game plan

Amelie Mauresmo v Francesca Schiavone

Every number combines what Amelie Mauresmo does well with what Francesca Schiavone allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Amelie Mauresmo wins, best of 3 79%90%: 54%–94% · best of 5: 85%

Serve points won 60.7% / 54.4% Amelie / Francesca · tour 56.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 79%serve 60.7% / 54.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Amelie Mauresmo's record against Francesca Schiavone'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	Amelie	Francesca
Direction choice	+0.31 ±0.13 better than 95%	+0.21 ±0.11 better than 86%
Shot selection	−0.31 ±0.21 better than 21%	−0.36 ±0.28 better than 18%
Execution	+0.61 ±0.36 better than 82%	+0.31 ±0.80 better than 72%
Points left on the table	2.65 ±0.21 lower than 43%	2.64 ±0.18 lower than 46%

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.

Amelie Mauresmo serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Amelie wins	v Francesca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	56%	66%	60%	59.8%±7.4	52% ▼
Body	10%	61%	63%	66.7%±10.9	0% ▼
T	35%	73%	68%	73.1%±7.5	48% ▲

Optimal v Francesca Schiavone: +0.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +8.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Amelie wins	v Francesca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	64%	67%	65.6%±7.4	61% ▲
Body	7%	51%	60%	55.3%±13.3	0% ▼
T	47%	65%	69%	69.7%±7.5	39% ▼

Optimal v Francesca Schiavone: +0.5±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Francesca Schiavone serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Francesca wins	v Amelie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	73%	65%	72.0%±7.0	56% ▲
Body	13%	59%	58%	59.6%±11.9	0% ▼
T	46%	60%	68%	59.6%±8.3	44% ▼

Optimal v Amelie Mauresmo: +1.1±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Francesca wins	v Amelie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	61%	65%	61.1%±7.8	42% ▼
Body	9%	57%	69%	69.0%±11.7	6% ▼
T	37%	66%	62%	63.6%±8.7	52% ▲

Optimal v Amelie Mauresmo: +0.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +6.2 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.

Amelie Mauresmo returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Francesca	Value
FH through the middle	38%	+4.2	+0.2	−3.2	+1.1±2.7
FH down the line	19%	+1.5	+3.1	−0.5	+4.2±4.6
FH slice through the middle	18%	−6.7	+1.4	−0.1	−5.4±2.3
FH crosscourt	13%	+5.3	+0.9	−0.9	+5.4±4.2
FH slice crosscourt	9%	−6.6	+1.4	+0.9	−4.3±2.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.0±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (580 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Francesca	Value
BH slice through the middle	49%	−6.2	+1.1	−1.1	−6.2±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	22%	−4.2	+4.0	+0.4	+0.3±2.8
BH through the middle	9%	+6.0	−3.6	+1.5	+3.9±2.8
BH slice down the line	9%	−12.5	+3.3	+0.8	−8.4±3.0
BH down the line	6%	+2.2	+1.4	−2.0	+1.5±4.6
BH crosscourt	4%	+7.7	+1.8	+1.3	+10.8±3.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +13.7±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (412 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Francesca	Value
FH down the line	31%	−0.6	+4.2	−2.0	+1.6±5.3
FH through the middle	31%	−3.2	+0.4	+0.8	−2.0±3.1
FH crosscourt	28%	+0.5	+0.4	−1.4	−0.5±4.4
FH slice through the middle	5%	−15.2	+2.2	±0.0	−13.0±1.4
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−14.9	+0.6	±0.0	−14.3±1.5

Lean FH down the line: +3.2±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (201 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Francesca	Value
BH through the middle	27%	−2.6	−0.5	−0.9	−4.0±2.8
BH slice through the middle	19%	−11.7	−0.7	±0.0	−12.4±1.7
BH crosscourt	15%	+1.5	−1.5	−0.6	−0.6±3.6
BH down the line	15%	−0.5	+0.1	−0.7	−1.2±5.1
BH slice crosscourt	13%	−7.5	+0.6	−1.2	−8.2±2.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (246 returns charted)

Francesca Schiavone returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
FH through the middle	37%	+4.2	+1.9	−0.3	+5.7±2.7
FH down the line	31%	+1.5	+1.7	−1.5	+1.7±4.4
FH slice through the middle	15%	−6.7	+0.4	+0.9	−5.4±2.5
FH crosscourt	10%	+5.3	+0.3	+2.1	+7.7±4.0
FH slice down the line	5%	−10.5	−1.1	±0.0	−11.6±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.8±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (224 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
BH slice through the middle	29%	−6.2	+0.8	−0.7	−6.1±2.5
BH through the middle	26%	+6.0	+0.8	−1.9	+4.9±2.6
BH crosscourt	18%	+7.7	−1.7	−2.3	+3.7±3.5
BH slice crosscourt	15%	−4.2	+0.6	+0.7	−2.9±2.8
BH down the line	9%	+2.2	+0.7	+0.9	+3.7±4.4

Lean BH through the middle: +5.2±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (242 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
FH through the middle	50%	−3.2	+1.6	−0.6	−2.3±2.8
FH down the line	19%	−0.6	+2.0	−1.4	+0.1±4.6
FH crosscourt	18%	+0.5	+1.8	−2.1	+0.3±3.7
FH slice through the middle	13%	−15.2	+0.4	±0.0	−14.8±1.3

Lean FH through the middle: +0.7±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (62 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
BH through the middle	40%	−2.6	+0.1	+0.8	−1.7±2.7
BH crosscourt	15%	+1.5	+1.2	+1.3	+4.0±3.3
FH through the middle	12%	−2.7	+0.2	−0.6	−3.1±2.2
BH down the line	11%	−0.5	−0.2	−0.1	−0.9±4.7
FH inside-out	10%	+1.4	+0.9	−1.4	+0.9±3.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.7±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (102 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 hard. Each player's hard record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Amelie Mauresmo

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	+6.9±4.9	+1.2	+5.8
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.2±3.3	+1.9	+3.3
FH to their backhand · return +1	+4.7±5.6	+3.6	+1.2
FH to the middle · rally	+4.3±2.9	+2.4	+1.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.2±4.8	+3.5	+0.7
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+3.9±3.6	+1.5	+2.5

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · serve +1	−2.0±3.9	−0.1	−1.8
FH to their forehand · return	−1.9±6.0	+1.4	−3.3
BH to the middle · return	−1.8±3.6	−3.9	+2.1
BH to their backhand · return	±0.0±4.9	±0.0	±0.0
FH to their backhand · rally	+0.2±3.6	+1.4	−1.3

Francesca Schiavone

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+5.8±4.0	+6.1	−0.2
FH to their forehand · return +1	+4.8±5.0	+2.5	+2.4
FH to the middle · return	+2.9±3.3	+4.4	−1.5
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+2.4±4.7	+1.6	+0.8
BH to their backhand · return	+1.9±4.8	+1.6	+0.4
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+1.6±4.8	+2.9	−1.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	−2.7±5.8	−3.1	+0.4
FH to the middle · serve +1	−2.0±4.0	+1.4	−3.3
FH to their backhand · rally	−1.8±3.8	−1.3	−0.5
FH to the middle · rally	−1.5±3.2	+0.7	−2.2
FH to their backhand · return	−1.4±5.5	+1.7	−3.1

Against Francesca Schiavone-like opponents

Amelie Mauresmo v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	57.8%	42.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Magdalena Frech, Karolina Muchova, Marta Kostyuk, Leylah Fernandez, Petra Martic, Ashleigh Barty, Kiki Bertens, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Saisai Zheng. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.