Game plan

Anhelina Kalinina v Julia Goerges

Every number combines what Anhelina Kalinina does well with what Julia Goerges allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Anhelina Kalinina wins, best of 3 18%90%: 4%–49% · best of 5: 13%

Serve points won 53.3% / 60.1% Anhelina / Julia · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 18%serve 53.3% / 60.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Anhelina Kalinina's record against Julia Goerges'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	Anhelina	Julia
Direction choice	+0.24 ±0.10 better than 90%	+0.23 ±0.09 better than 89%
Shot selection	−0.03 ±0.17 better than 44%	+0.79 ±0.14 better than 99%
Execution	+0.47 ±0.64 better than 78%	−0.84 ±0.54 better than 22%
Points left on the table	2.11 ±0.10 lower than 98%	2.33 ±0.13 lower than 84%

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.

Anhelina Kalinina serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Anhelina wins	v Julia	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	61%	66%	60.8%±8.2	39%
Body	27%	55%	59%	56.5%±8.7	12% ▼
T	34%	64%	71%	67.6%±7.6	49% ▲

Optimal v Julia Goerges: +1.4±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Anhelina wins	v Julia	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	50%	63%	70%	67.6%±7.1	65% ▲
Body	25%	51%	53%	47.9%±9.3	9% ▼
T	25%	62%	57%	55.2%±9.5	26%

Optimal v Julia Goerges: +0.8±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +8.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Julia Goerges serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Julia wins	v Anhelina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	70%	64%	68.0%±6.8	62% ▲
Body	16%	56%	58%	57.2%±9.4	1% ▼
T	37%	72%	62%	67.4%±8.2	37%

Optimal v Anhelina Kalinina: +1.1±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +2.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Julia wins	v Anhelina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	38%	72%	64%	70.5%±7.3	37% ▼
Body	14%	54%	51%	48.2%±10.7	0% ▼
T	48%	71%	66%	73.1%±6.9	63% ▲

Optimal v Anhelina Kalinina: +1.6±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.5 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.

Anhelina Kalinina returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Julia	Value
FH through the middle	38%	+4.2	−2.3	−0.8	+1.1±2.8
FH crosscourt	26%	+5.3	+3.1	+1.9	+10.3±4.3
FH slice through the middle	16%	−6.7	+0.5	−0.6	−6.7±2.6
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	−1.3	+2.5	+2.7±4.7
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−6.6	+1.3	+0.8	−4.6±2.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.6±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (312 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Julia	Value
BH through the middle	48%	+6.0	+1.3	−1.9	+5.5±2.6
BH crosscourt	44%	+7.7	−0.2	+1.5	+8.9±3.5
BH down the line	9%	+2.2	+3.6	−0.4	+5.3±4.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.0±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Julia	Value
FH crosscourt	48%	+0.5	+0.4	+1.9	+2.8±4.5
FH through the middle	35%	−3.2	+3.0	+0.5	+0.4±3.0
FH down the line	17%	−0.6	+0.1	+0.6	+0.1±4.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.3±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (81 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Julia	Value
BH crosscourt	58%	+1.5	−1.0	−1.0	−0.6±3.4
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+1.4	−3.4	−4.6±2.7
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	+0.8	−1.9	−1.6±4.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.5±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (120 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Julia Goerges returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
FH through the middle	33%	+4.2	−2.0	+1.1	+3.2±2.9
FH down the line	28%	+1.5	+0.3	+1.5	+3.3±4.6
FH crosscourt	18%	+5.3	+2.3	+1.6	+9.2±4.3
FH slice through the middle	15%	−6.7	−0.9	±0.0	−7.6±2.4
FH slice crosscourt	3%	−6.6	+0.7	+0.9	−5.0±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +7.0±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (265 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
BH through the middle	43%	+6.0	−1.7	+0.1	+4.4±2.5
BH crosscourt	19%	+7.7	−3.5	−1.4	+2.8±3.5
BH down the line	18%	+2.2	−1.8	−0.9	−0.5±4.7
BH slice through the middle	11%	−6.2	−1.9	−1.2	−9.4±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	7%	−4.2	−4.0	+0.4	−7.8±2.6

Lean BH through the middle: +4.0±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (371 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
FH crosscourt	40%	+0.5	−1.6	−1.1	−2.1±4.3
FH through the middle	32%	−3.2	−1.3	−0.6	−5.1±2.9
FH down the line	28%	−0.6	−1.1	+1.2	−0.5±4.9

Lean FH down the line: +2.1±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (57 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
BH through the middle	33%	−2.6	−3.0	±0.0	−5.5±2.7
BH crosscourt	25%	+1.5	+0.8	−1.9	+0.4±3.6
BH down the line	22%	−0.5	−3.7	+5.1	+0.8±5.3
FH inside-out	8%	+1.4	−2.8	+1.2	−0.2±4.0
FH inside-in	6%	+0.7	+1.2	−1.1	+0.9±4.2

Lean BH down the line: +2.6±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 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.

Anhelina Kalinina

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	+7.0±5.8	+6.0	+0.9
BH to the middle · return +1	+4.5±3.6	+3.4	+1.0
FH to their backhand · return +1	+3.8±5.8	+0.1	+3.7
BH to their backhand · rally	+3.2±3.7	+1.3	+1.8
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.8±4.4	+1.5	+1.3
FH to their backhand · rally	+2.5±4.7	+2.8	−0.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−8.3±6.7	−4.4	−3.9
BH to their forehand · rally	−7.7±5.8	−0.5	−7.2
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−5.8±5.4	−1.5	−4.3
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−5.0±4.5	−4.3	−0.7
BH to their forehand · return +1	−4.7±6.8	−0.1	−4.6

Julia Goerges

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+5.9±4.9	+5.1	+0.7
FH to their backhand · rally	+5.2±4.2	+3.0	+2.2
BH to their backhand · return +1	+3.7±4.9	+4.3	−0.6
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+3.0±5.1	+2.0	+1.0
FH to their forehand · return	+2.6±5.9	−1.0	+3.6
FH to the middle · serve +1	+2.5±3.7	+1.0	+1.5

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · return	−4.4±3.6	−4.3	−0.2
FH to their forehand · rally	−3.7±4.4	−4.6	+0.9
BH to their forehand · return	−2.9±6.1	−6.4	+3.5
FH to their backhand · return	−1.8±5.3	−3.0	+1.2
FH to their forehand · return +1	−1.6±5.3	−0.6	−1.0

Against Julia Goerges-like opponents

Anhelina Kalinina v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	53.0%	43.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Madison Keys, Amanda Anisimova, Talia Gibson, Dayana Yastremska, Viktoria Hruncakova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Alycia Parks, Sabine Lisicki, Ana Ivanovic, Daniela Hantuchova. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.