RallyIQ

Game plan

Ana Ivanovic v Louisa Chirico

Every number combines what Ana Ivanovic does well with what Louisa Chirico allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Ana Ivanovic wins, best of 3 60%90%: 26%–88% · best of 5: 63%
Serve points won 60.2% / 58.2% Ana / Louisa · tour 58.1%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 60%serve 59.9% / 57.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Ana Ivanovic's record against Louisa Chirico's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +3.1 on serve, −2.6 on return vs expectation (461 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

CareerAnaLouisa
Direction choice+0.22 ±0.06
better than 88%
−0.13 ±0.14
better than 30%
Shot selection+0.19 ±0.13
better than 64%
+0.09 ±0.19
better than 54%
Execution−0.07 ±0.34
better than 58%
−0.96 ±1.01
better than 19%

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.

Ana Ivanovic serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowAna winsv LouisaMatchupOptimal
Wide48%72%69%74.8%±8.163% ▲
Body18%59%57%58.7%±11.13% ▼
T34%74%62%68.7%±9.634%

Optimal v Louisa Chirico: +1.1±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +5.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowAna winsv LouisaMatchupOptimal
Wide42%67%58%60.4%±9.641% ▼
Body14%59%56%58.1%±12.00% ▼
T44%71%72%77.0%±8.259% ▲

Optimal v Louisa Chirico: +0.8±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +9.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Louisa Chirico serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowLouisa winsv AnaMatchupOptimal
Wide42%66%70%70.1%±8.857% ▲
Body29%64%52%58.7%±10.514% ▼
T28%68%63%63.6%±10.929%

Optimal v Ana Ivanovic: +1.1±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +5.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowLouisa winsv AnaMatchupOptimal
Wide33%67%65%66.4%±9.238% ▲
Body26%55%54%52.4%±10.911% ▼
T42%65%66%66.2%±9.251% ▲

Optimal v Ana Ivanovic: +0.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.7 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.

Ana Ivanovic returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv LouisaValue
FH through the middle41%+4.2−3.6−3.6−3.1±2.8
FH crosscourt39%+5.3−1.3−3.9+0.1±3.8
FH down the line17%+1.5+0.8−0.9+1.4±4.4
FH slice through the middle2%−6.7−0.1−0.5−7.3±2.1
BH through the middle1%+5.2+0.6−0.9+4.9±2.4

Lean FH down the line: +2.5±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (538 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv LouisaValue
BH through the middle45%+6.0+1.0−0.9+6.1±2.4
BH crosscourt29%+7.7+2.1+0.4+10.2±3.0
BH slice through the middle10%−6.2−2.1−0.2−8.5±2.4
BH down the line9%+2.2+2.2−4.6−0.2±4.4
BH slice crosscourt6%−4.2+0.4+0.3−3.4±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.7±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (958 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv LouisaValue
FH crosscourt40%+0.5+1.2+0.7+2.4±4.4
FH through the middle38%−3.2−3.3−0.2−6.7±3.1
FH down the line22%−0.6−2.0−3.0−5.7±5.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.2±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv LouisaValue
BH through the middle37%−2.6−0.3−0.1−3.0±2.5
BH crosscourt37%+1.5+1.7+2.2+5.4±3.2
BH down the line12%−0.5+1.1−1.2−0.6±5.0
FH inside-in7%+0.7−3.1+0.7−1.7±4.7
FH through the middle4%−2.7−0.2−0.2−3.1±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (524 returns charted)

Louisa Chirico returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnaValue
FH through the middle65%+4.2−1.2−0.6+2.4±2.6
FH crosscourt17%+5.3−2.1−1.9+1.3±3.8
FH down the line12%+1.5+0.8−0.4+1.9±3.6
FH slice through the middle6%−6.7−0.3−1.6−8.7±2.1

Lean FH through the middle: +0.9±1.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (83 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnaValue
BH through the middle52%+6.0−1.3−1.4+3.2±2.5
BH crosscourt20%+7.7+0.5−2.3+5.9±3.0
BH down the line12%+2.2−0.2+0.8+2.8±4.0
BH slice through the middle10%−6.2+0.3−0.4−6.4±2.2
BH slice crosscourt6%−4.2−0.8−0.2−5.1±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.6±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (90 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnaValue
BH crosscourt47%+1.5+0.3−1.8+0.1±3.2
BH through the middle38%−2.6+1.1−0.4−1.9±2.4
FH through the middle15%−2.7−0.3−0.3−3.3±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.3±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (66 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 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.

Ana Ivanovic

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1+5.0±4.9+2.5+2.5
BH to the middle · return−0.3±2.9+0.5−0.8
FH to their backhand · rally−0.9±4.5+2.5−3.3
FH to their forehand · rally−0.9±4.1−1.0+0.1
BH to their backhand · rally−2.1±3.9−1.0−1.1
FH to the middle · rally−2.2±3.0−2.1−0.2

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to the middle · return−4.6±3.4−1.6−3.0
BH to the middle · rally−3.0±2.8−1.0−2.0
FH to the middle · rally−2.2±3.0−2.1−0.2
BH to their backhand · rally−2.1±3.9−1.0−1.1
FH to their forehand · rally−0.9±4.1−1.0+0.1

Louisa Chirico

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · rally+6.8±5.3+0.9+6.0
BH to their backhand · rally+1.1±3.8+1.6−0.5
BH to the middle · return+0.6±3.1−0.1+0.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1+0.6±4.9−0.2+0.8
FH to the middle · rally+0.1±3.0+0.7−0.6
FH to their backhand · rally−0.4±4.5−0.8+0.4

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to the middle · return−3.2±3.3−2.5−0.7
FH to their forehand · rally−3.0±4.0−2.2−0.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.2±4.7+2.3−3.5
BH to the middle · rally−0.6±2.8+0.4−0.9
FH to their backhand · rally−0.4±4.5−0.8+0.4

Against Louisa Chirico-like opponents

Ana Ivanovic vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–59.3%43.6%
Players most similar to Louisa Chirico4 60.6%41.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Coco Gauff, Iva Jovic, Anastasia Potapova, Anna Bondar, Varvara Gracheva, Jessica Bouzas Maneiro, Venus Williams, Jennifer Brady, Eugenie Bouchard. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.