Game plan

Anhelina Kalinina v Tatjana Maria

Every number combines what Anhelina Kalinina does well with what Tatjana Maria 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 40%90%: 13%–74% · best of 5: 38%

Serve points won 55.9% / 57.8% Anhelina / Tatjana · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 43%serve 56.1% / 57.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Anhelina Kalinina's record against Tatjana Maria's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −4.1 on serve, −13.4 on return vs expectation (106 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	Anhelina	Tatjana
Direction choice	+0.24 ±0.10 better than 90%	+0.17 ±0.11 better than 82%
Shot selection	−0.03 ±0.17 better than 44%	−4.80 ±0.55 better than 0%
Execution	+0.47 ±0.64 better than 78%	+1.80 ±0.44 better than 98%
Points left on the table	2.11 ±0.10 lower than 98%	3.32 ±0.20 lower than 3%

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: Anhelina Kalinina −2.60, Tatjana Maria +2.18. 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.

Anhelina Kalinina serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Anhelina wins	v Tatjana	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	61%	61%	55.4%±8.6	24% ▼
Body	27%	55%	61%	58.4%±9.0	27%
T	34%	64%	66%	62.4%±8.2	49% ▲

Optimal v Tatjana Maria: +1.0±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Anhelina wins	v Tatjana	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	50%	63%	58%	55.9%±7.8	56% ▲
Body	25%	51%	58%	52.9%±9.6	9% ▼
T	25%	62%	56%	54.0%±9.7	35% ▲

Optimal v Tatjana Maria: +0.3±1.0 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.

Tatjana Maria serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tatjana wins	v Anhelina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	38%	70%	64%	68.2%±7.2	54% ▲
Body	14%	60%	58%	60.8%±10.2	0% ▼
T	47%	75%	62%	70.6%±7.7	46% ▼

Optimal v Anhelina Kalinina: +1.0±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tatjana wins	v Anhelina	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	24%	74%	64%	73.2%±8.4	25% ▲
Body	11%	54%	51%	48.8%±11.7	0% ▼
T	65%	68%	66%	70.3%±7.0	75% ▲

Optimal v Anhelina Kalinina: +1.0±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.6 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 Tatjana	Value
FH through the middle	38%	+4.2	−2.3	−0.1	+1.7±2.8
FH crosscourt	26%	+5.3	+3.1	+0.4	+8.8±4.3
FH slice through the middle	16%	−6.7	+0.5	±0.0	−6.2±2.6
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	−1.3	−6.0	−5.9±4.6
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−6.6	+1.3	−2.5	−7.8±2.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.3±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (312 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
BH through the middle	48%	+6.0	+1.3	−2.0	+5.4±2.7
BH crosscourt	44%	+7.7	−0.2	−2.5	+5.0±3.5
BH down the line	9%	+2.2	+3.6	−6.2	−0.5±4.5

Lean BH through the middle: +0.7±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
FH crosscourt	48%	+0.5	+0.4	+3.2	+4.2±4.4
FH through the middle	35%	−3.2	+3.0	+0.4	+0.2±2.9
FH down the line	17%	−0.6	+0.1	−0.1	−0.6±4.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.2±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (81 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tatjana	Value
BH crosscourt	58%	+1.5	−1.0	±0.0	+0.5±3.6
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+1.4	+2.2	+1.0±2.7
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	+0.8	−1.1	−0.8±4.4

Lean BH through the middle: +0.4±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (120 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Tatjana Maria returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
FH slice through the middle	44%	−6.7	+3.5	±0.0	−3.2±2.3
FH slice crosscourt	19%	−6.6	+4.2	+0.9	−1.6±2.5
FH through the middle	14%	+4.2	−3.2	+1.1	+2.0±2.9
FH crosscourt	11%	+5.3	+0.7	+1.6	+7.6±4.2
FH slice down the line	9%	−10.5	+3.7	−0.8	−7.5±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.8±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (254 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
BH slice through the middle	46%	−6.2	+4.6	−1.2	−2.9±2.3
BH slice crosscourt	31%	−4.2	+3.2	+0.4	−0.6±2.6
BH slice down the line	9%	−12.5	+3.9	−0.5	−9.0±2.9
BH through the middle	8%	+6.0	−1.0	+0.1	+5.1±2.7
BH crosscourt	4%	+7.7	+0.9	−1.4	+7.3±3.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +8.8±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (356 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
FH slice through the middle	33%	−15.2	+3.0	±0.0	−12.2±1.8
FH crosscourt	25%	+0.5	−0.4	−1.1	−1.0±4.2
FH through the middle	16%	−3.2	−0.3	−0.6	−4.1±2.8
FH slice crosscourt	14%	−14.9	+1.4	±0.0	−13.5±1.6
FH slice down the line	12%	−14.1	+1.2	±0.0	−12.9±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +7.4±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (76 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anhelina	Value
BH slice through the middle	34%	−11.7	+1.2	±0.0	−10.4±1.7
BH slice crosscourt	30%	−7.5	+0.2	±0.0	−7.3±2.1
BH through the middle	7%	−2.6	−0.5	±0.0	−3.1±2.5
BH slice down the line	7%	−10.6	+4.5	±0.0	−6.1±2.6
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	−1.3	+5.1	+3.3±4.8

Lean BH through the middle: +3.2±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (202 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 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	+9.0±5.9	+6.0	+3.0
FH to the middle · return	+2.1±3.4	+0.8	+1.3
BH to the middle · return	−1.1±3.2	+1.1	−2.2
FH to the middle · serve +1	−1.3±3.8	+1.9	−3.2
BH to their backhand · return	−1.7±4.4	−0.2	−1.4
FH to their backhand · return +1	−1.9±5.5	+0.1	−2.1

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−8.9±6.5	−4.4	−4.5
BH to their backhand · return +1	−7.6±4.6	−2.5	−5.1
BH to their forehand · return	−6.7±6.2	±0.0	−6.8
FH to the middle · rally	−6.3±3.5	±0.0	−6.3
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−6.2±4.7	−4.3	−1.9

Tatjana Maria

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	+6.5±6.2	+2.9	+3.6
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.5±5.5	+3.7	+0.7
FH to their forehand · rally	+1.8±5.0	+0.9	+0.9
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+1.3±5.6	+0.2	+1.0
FH to the middle · rally	+1.0±3.5	+1.8	−0.8
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+0.8±3.3	+1.9	−1.1

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · return	−0.6±3.9	−0.4	−0.2
BH slice to the middle · rally	+0.3±3.0	+0.2	+0.1
FH to their backhand · rally	+0.8±5.0	−1.4	+2.2
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+0.8±3.3	+1.9	−1.1
FH to the middle · rally	+1.0±3.5	+1.8	−0.8

Against Tatjana Maria-like opponents

Anhelina Kalinina v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	53.0%	43.5%
Players most similar to Tatjana Maria	1	54.4%	28.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Karolina Muchova, Viktorija Golubic, Diane Parry, Alison Van Uytvanck, Kirsten Flipkens, Ashleigh Barty, Francesca Schiavone, Roberta Vinci, Justine Henin, Amelie Mauresmo. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.