RallyIQ

Game plan

Anastasija Sevastova v Kateryna Baindl

Every number combines what Anastasija Sevastova does well with what Kateryna Baindl allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Anastasija Sevastova wins, best of 3 79%90%: 39%–97% · best of 5: 84%
Serve points won 59.4% / 53.4% Anastasija / Kateryna · tour 58.1%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 79%serve 59.6% / 53.5%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Anastasija Sevastova's record against Kateryna Baindl's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −4.3 on serve, +3.1 on return vs expectation (172 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

CareerAnastasijaKateryna
Direction choice+0.24 ±0.10
better than 90%
−0.22 ±0.17
better than 15%
Shot selection−0.25 ±0.17
better than 25%
−0.56 ±0.33
better than 10%
Execution+0.04 ±0.48
better than 63%
−0.18 ±0.49
better than 52%
Points left on the table2.23 ±0.13
lower than 91%
2.61 ±0.17
lower than 50%

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.

Anastasija Sevastova serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowAnastasija winsv KaterynaMatchupOptimal
Wide46%66%63%62.5%±9.346%
Body15%60%61%62.6%±12.10% ▼
T39%68%76%75.5%±8.654% ▲

Optimal v Kateryna Baindl: +0.9±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +7.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowAnastasija winsv KaterynaMatchupOptimal
Wide46%58%69%61.8%±9.661% ▲
Body23%52%62%57.7%±11.98% ▼
T31%61%60%56.4%±11.031%

Optimal v Kateryna Baindl: +0.4±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Kateryna Baindl serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowKateryna winsv AnastasijaMatchupOptimal
Wide33%59%68%61.8%±9.948% ▲
Body31%60%58%60.8%±10.515% ▼
T37%63%70%65.3%±9.637%

Optimal v Anastasija Sevastova: +0.3±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowKateryna winsv AnastasijaMatchupOptimal
Wide33%59%72%66.1%±9.548% ▲
Body33%53%59%56.1%±11.218% ▼
T34%50%65%50.7%±10.234%

Optimal v Anastasija Sevastova: +0.4±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +8.5 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.

Anastasija Sevastova returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv KaterynaValue
FH through the middle38%+4.2+0.9+0.8+5.9±3.0
FH crosscourt22%+5.3+1.0−0.1+6.3±4.4
FH slice through the middle16%−6.7+0.6+1.0−5.1±2.2
FH down the line14%+1.5+1.3−0.7+2.1±4.7
FH slice crosscourt6%−6.6−1.4+0.9−7.1±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.0±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv KaterynaValue
BH through the middle38%+6.0+0.6−2.5+4.1±2.8
BH crosscourt30%+7.7−2.4+1.2+6.6±3.6
BH slice through the middle15%−6.2−0.4−0.4−7.0±2.1
BH down the line9%+2.2−0.8−4.3−2.9±4.5
BH slice crosscourt6%−4.2+0.6±0.0−3.5±1.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.8±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (247 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv KaterynaValue
BH crosscourt51%+1.5−0.3+1.4+2.6±3.7
BH through the middle39%−2.6+0.9+0.9−0.8±2.8
BH down the line10%−0.5−0.4−3.0−3.9±4.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.9±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (133 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Kateryna Baindl returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnastasijaValue
FH through the middle56%+4.2+2.0+1.6+7.7±2.9
FH crosscourt26%+5.3+1.8−0.2+6.9±4.3
FH down the line10%+1.5+0.3+0.8+2.6±4.3
FH slice through the middle8%−6.7+0.2+0.8−5.7±2.2

Lean FH through the middle: +1.8±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (131 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnastasijaValue
BH through the middle53%+6.0+0.2+1.9+8.2±2.7
BH crosscourt27%+7.7−0.5−0.2+7.1±3.6
BH down the line12%+2.2−3.1+2.5+1.6±4.3
BH slice through the middle8%−6.2+0.5−0.7−6.4±2.2

Lean BH through the middle: +2.3±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (131 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AnastasijaValue
BH through the middle45%−2.6+0.2+1.0−1.5±2.8
BH crosscourt30%+1.5−0.1+1.0+2.4±3.5
BH down the line25%−0.5+1.1+1.6+2.2±4.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (77 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.

Anastasija Sevastova

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1+6.4±4.9+2.3+4.0
FH to their backhand · serve +1+5.1±5.0+2.5+2.6
BH to their forehand · rally+3.7±4.2+3.9−0.2
FH to the middle · return+3.6±2.8+1.1+2.4
FH to their forehand · return+2.8±4.5+2.9±0.0
BH to their backhand · return+1.4±4.3−0.7+2.1

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return−8.0±4.5−3.0−5.0
BH to their backhand · rally−4.6±3.8−4.1−0.5
FH to their forehand · rally−3.3±3.9−4.3+1.1
FH to their forehand · return +1−3.1±3.9−2.4−0.7
FH to the middle · serve +1−1.9±3.3−1.6−0.2

Kateryna Baindl

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return+4.0±3.2+0.4+3.6
FH to the middle · return+2.3±3.4+1.2+1.2
BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.1±4.5+0.6+1.5
BH to their backhand · return+1.7±4.3−0.5+2.2
BH to their forehand · rally+1.5±4.4−0.4+1.9
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.3±2.7+0.2+1.1

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · rally−4.0±3.8−0.7−3.3
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.7±4.8−1.0−1.7
FH to the middle · rally−2.1±3.0±0.0−2.1
FH to their backhand · rally−1.8±4.3−1.0−0.8
BH to the middle · return +1−1.0±2.6−0.2−0.7

Against Kateryna Baindl-like opponents

Anastasija Sevastova vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–54.9%41.0%
Players most similar to Kateryna Baindl1 48.9%45.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Viktorija Golubic, Jasmine Paolini, Jaqueline Cristian, Victoria Azarenka, Zarina Diyas, Simona Halep, Timea Bacsinszky, Dominika Cibulkova, Agnieszka Radwanska. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.