Game plan
Andrey Rublev v Daniel Altmaier
Every number combines what Andrey Rublev does well with what Daniel Altmaier 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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Andrey Rublev's record against Daniel Altmaier's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −1.2 on serve, −0.2 on return vs expectation (1119 points); head-to-head: −14.7 on serve, −10.4 on return vs expectation (100 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 | Andrey | Daniel |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.03 ±0.04 better than 64% | −0.17 ±0.12 better than 18% |
| Shot selection | −0.01 ±0.06 better than 52% | −0.98 ±0.22 better than 3% |
| Execution | +0.89 ±0.28 better than 94% | +0.23 ±0.64 better than 77% |
| Points left on the table | 2.39 ±0.07 lower than 74% | 3.13 ±0.20 lower than 14% |
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.
Structural compatibility
Expected edge per 100 rally shots from style alone: Andrey Rublev +0.12, Daniel Altmaier −0.04. Each player's shot mix weighted by their own skill with each shot and by how much the other gives up against it. This is why some rankings gaps don't hold in a given matchup.
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.
Andrey Rublev serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Andrey wins | v Daniel | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 44% | 74% | 76% | 77.5%±4.1 | 57% ▲ |
| Body | 5% | 68% | 68% | 72.9%±9.5 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 51% | 80% | 77% | 81.5%±3.8 | 43% ▼ |
Optimal v Daniel Altmaier: +0.3±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Andrey wins | v Daniel | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 52% | 77% | 78% | 81.0%±4.0 | 65% ▲ |
| Body | 4% | 68% | 60% | 65.2%±11.3 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 44% | 73% | 75% | 76.6%±4.4 | 35% ▼ |
Optimal v Daniel Altmaier: +0.5±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Daniel Altmaier serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniel wins | v Andrey | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 44% | 69% | 74% | 69.9%±4.6 | 58% ▲ |
| Body | 3% | 60% | 60% | 57.4%±12.7 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 53% | 75% | 72% | 72.2%±4.5 | 42% ▼ |
Optimal v Andrey Rublev: +0.5±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniel wins | v Andrey | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 57% | 71% | 72% | 70.6%±4.6 | 48% ▼ |
| Body | 4% | 62% | 60% | 59.0%±12.2 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 67% | 74% | 68.8%±5.1 | 52% ▲ |
Optimal v Andrey Rublev: +0.4±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.2 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.
Andrey Rublev returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniel | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 46% | +4.3 | +1.4 | +0.7 | +6.3±2.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 24% | +5.5 | +3.9 | +1.8 | +11.2±3.4 |
| FH down the line | 13% | +1.7 | +2.5 | +1.2 | +5.4±3.8 |
| FH slice through the middle | 10% | −4.2 | −2.9 | +1.7 | −5.4±2.0 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 4% | −4.3 | −0.6 | +0.6 | −4.3±2.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +5.6±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (2295 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniel | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 47% | +6.4 | +3.2 | +1.4 | +11.1±1.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 32% | +8.8 | +3.9 | −0.1 | +12.6±2.6 |
| BH down the line | 9% | +4.2 | +4.2 | +2.8 | +11.2±4.1 |
| BH slice through the middle | 6% | −4.2 | −0.6 | ±0.0 | −4.8±2.3 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 3% | +0.5 | −2.2 | −0.2 | −1.9±3.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (2738 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniel | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | −3.5 | +1.0 | +0.4 | −2.0±2.4 |
| FH crosscourt | 29% | −0.2 | +0.6 | +0.7 | +1.1±4.0 |
| FH down the line | 21% | −1.8 | −0.4 | −0.9 | −3.1±4.4 |
| BH through the middle | 2% | +0.1 | −0.7 | +1.2 | +0.6±1.7 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −12.7 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | −13.0±1.4 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (677 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniel | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 43% | +1.0 | +0.8 | +1.2 | +3.1±2.3 |
| BH through the middle | 39% | −2.9 | +0.8 | +1.2 | −0.9±1.7 |
| BH down the line | 9% | −0.2 | +2.3 | −1.6 | +0.6±4.5 |
| FH through the middle | 4% | −2.9 | −1.1 | +0.4 | −3.5±2.3 |
| FH inside-in | 2% | +0.6 | +1.0 | +0.7 | +2.2±4.4 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (2289 returns charted)
Daniel Altmaier returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Andrey | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 31% | +4.3 | +1.2 | +2.7 | +8.1±2.2 |
| FH slice through the middle | 31% | −4.2 | −0.3 | +0.8 | −3.7±1.8 |
| FH slice down the line | 15% | −4.3 | +0.8 | +2.2 | −1.3±3.1 |
| FH down the line | 12% | +1.7 | −3.3 | +0.8 | −0.8±3.8 |
| FH crosscourt | 7% | +5.5 | −4.2 | +5.0 | +6.4±3.6 |
Lean FH through the middle: +6.8±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (398 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Andrey | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice through the middle | 43% | −4.2 | +1.5 | −0.5 | −3.2±1.9 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 24% | +0.5 | −1.6 | +0.3 | −0.8±2.7 |
| BH through the middle | 12% | +6.4 | +0.1 | +3.1 | +9.6±2.2 |
| BH slice down the line | 8% | −8.4 | +0.3 | −0.9 | −9.0±3.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 8% | +8.8 | −2.8 | +3.6 | +9.6±2.8 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +9.6±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (327 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Andrey | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 52% | −3.5 | −0.3 | +1.1 | −2.7±2.3 |
| FH down the line | 23% | −1.8 | +1.2 | +1.0 | +0.4±3.8 |
| FH crosscourt | 19% | −0.2 | −0.2 | +2.4 | +2.0±3.6 |
| FH slice through the middle | 6% | −12.7 | +0.9 | −0.5 | −12.3±1.9 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (114 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Andrey | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 40% | −2.9 | +0.9 | +0.3 | −1.7±1.9 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +1.0 | +0.1 | +0.9 | +1.9±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 13% | −0.2 | −1.2 | +7.5 | +6.1±4.2 |
| FH through the middle | 9% | −2.9 | −0.3 | +1.1 | −2.1±1.9 |
| FH inside-out | 7% | +1.0 | −0.1 | +1.0 | +1.9±2.9 |
Lean BH down the line: +6.1±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (257 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.
Andrey Rublev
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · return | +5.8±3.2 | +3.9 | +1.9 |
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | +4.9±4.0 | +0.8 | +4.1 |
| BH to the middle · return | +3.4±1.4 | +2.1 | +1.3 |
| FH to their backhand · return | +3.0±3.1 | +2.3 | +0.7 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +3.0±2.0 | +2.2 | +0.8 |
| BH to their forehand · return | +3.0±3.6 | +1.8 | +1.2 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −3.6±3.1 | −0.8 | −2.8 |
| FH to the middle · return +1 | −3.0±2.2 | −1.2 | −1.8 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | −2.6±3.0 | +0.8 | −3.4 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | −2.5±2.2 | +0.2 | −2.7 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | −2.1±2.1 | −0.7 | −1.4 |
Daniel Altmaier
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · return | +4.6±3.7 | −0.6 | +5.3 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +3.6±1.4 | +2.3 | +1.2 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.5±2.8 | +1.7 | +1.8 |
| FH slice to their backhand · return | +2.7±3.0 | +0.9 | +1.8 |
| FH to the middle · return | +2.4±1.7 | +0.1 | +2.3 |
| FH slice to the middle · return | +1.6±1.8 | +0.6 | +1.0 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | −4.4±2.9 | −2.7 | −1.7 |
| BH slice to the middle · return +1 | −4.4±2.0 | −2.0 | −2.3 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −3.8±3.1 | −2.4 | −1.4 |
| BH slice to the middle · rally | −3.3±1.7 | −0.8 | −2.5 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −2.9±2.9 | −3.6 | +0.8 |
Against Daniel Altmaier-like opponents
| Andrey Rublev v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 66.4% | 37.2% |
| Players most similar to Daniel Altmaier | 8 | 66.0% | 37.8% |
| Daniel Altmaier (charted head-to-head) | 1 | 52.9% | 28.6% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jiri Lehecka, Jakub Mensik, Karen Khachanov, Laslo Djere, Benjamin Bonzi, Robin Haase, Filip Krajinovic, Denis Istomin, Denis Kudla, Mikhail Youzhny. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.