RallyIQ

Game plan

Arthur Rinderknech v Albert Ramos

Every number combines what Arthur Rinderknech does well with what Albert Ramos allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Arthur Rinderknech wins, best of 3 28%90%: 10%–54% · best of 5: 23%
Serve points won 61.2% / 65.9% Arthur / Albert · tour 61.3%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 28%serve 61.2% / 65.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Arthur Rinderknech's record against Albert Ramos'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

CareerArthurAlbert
Direction choice−0.22 ±0.10
better than 12%
+0.07 ±0.10
better than 76%
Shot selection+0.45 ±0.17
better than 90%
+0.07 ±0.17
better than 61%
Execution−0.47 ±0.72
better than 46%
+0.14 ±0.35
better than 74%
Points left on the table3.12 ±0.16
lower than 14%
2.58 ±0.15
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.

Structural compatibility

Expected edge per 100 rally shots from style alone: Arthur Rinderknech ±0.00, Albert Ramos +1.46. 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.

Arthur Rinderknech serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowArthur winsv AlbertMatchupOptimal
Wide45%76%74%77.2%±5.158% ▲
Body11%63%71%71.5%±10.20% ▼
T43%74%76%75.6%±6.042% ▼

Optimal v Albert Ramos: +0.4±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowArthur winsv AlbertMatchupOptimal
Wide45%79%70%77.0%±6.042% ▼
Body9%61%58%55.8%±11.70% ▼
T45%73%73%73.7%±6.158% ▲

Optimal v Albert Ramos: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Albert Ramos serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowAlbert winsv ArthurMatchupOptimal
Wide31%68%76%72.4%±6.944% ▲
Body10%60%71%68.7%±10.50% ▼
T60%61%80%68.5%±6.356% ▼

Optimal v Arthur Rinderknech: +0.5±0.8 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.

Ad court

1st serveNowAlbert winsv ArthurMatchupOptimal
Wide60%65%81%74.3%±5.756% ▼
Body8%61%67%65.0%±11.90% ▼
T31%69%80%77.7%±6.344% ▲

Optimal v Arthur Rinderknech: +0.7±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.1 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.

Arthur Rinderknech returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AlbertValue
FH through the middle41%+4.3+1.8−0.1+5.9±2.7
FH down the line23%+1.7+5.2−2.7+4.2±4.5
FH crosscourt17%+5.5−1.0+3.8+8.3±4.3
FH slice through the middle9%−4.2−3.8+0.6−7.4±2.3
FH slice down the line5%−4.3−1.0±0.0−5.2±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.7±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (319 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AlbertValue
BH through the middle44%+6.4+2.7+1.7+10.8±2.2
BH crosscourt23%+8.8+0.2+2.5+11.5±3.3
BH down the line12%+4.2−1.0−1.0+2.3±4.4
BH slice through the middle10%−4.2+0.2+0.9−3.2±2.5
BH slice crosscourt7%+0.5−3.9+0.4−2.9±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (346 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AlbertValue
FH through the middle39%−3.5+2.9+0.4−0.2±2.7
FH down the line33%−1.8+1.2+2.6+2.0±4.6
FH crosscourt28%−0.2+2.6+0.5+2.9±4.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.5±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (72 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AlbertValue
BH through the middle39%−2.9+0.2−0.3−3.1±2.3
BH crosscourt23%+1.0+2.2+0.6+3.8±3.2
FH through the middle15%−2.9−1.0+0.4−3.5±2.3
FH inside-in11%+0.6+1.9+0.5+3.0±4.3
BH down the line9%−0.2−4.0+1.3−2.9±4.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted)

Albert Ramos returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv ArthurValue
FH through the middle40%+4.3+1.2−1.0+4.5±2.7
FH crosscourt33%+5.5+3.8−1.5+7.8±4.2
FH down the line11%+1.7+1.2−3.6−0.7±4.5
FH slice through the middle7%−4.2−2.1+0.8−5.5±2.3
FH slice crosscourt5%−4.3+0.3+0.6−3.4±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (339 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv ArthurValue
BH through the middle44%+6.4±0.0−1.1+5.3±2.4
BH crosscourt18%+8.8−1.5+0.2+7.5±3.5
BH slice through the middle17%−4.2−2.1±0.0−6.3±2.5
BH down the line11%+4.2+1.6+1.1+6.9±4.6
BH slice crosscourt5%+0.5−2.2−1.6−3.3±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.8±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (504 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv ArthurValue
FH crosscourt47%−0.2+0.7+1.3+1.8±4.3
FH through the middle44%−3.5±0.0±0.0−3.4±2.8
FH down the line9%−1.8+0.8+3.8+2.8±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.2±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (129 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv ArthurValue
BH through the middle42%−2.9+0.2±0.0−2.7±2.3
BH crosscourt23%+1.0−0.8−1.1−0.9±3.1
FH through the middle14%−2.9+1.2±0.0−1.6±2.4
FH inside-in8%+0.6−0.8+1.3+1.1±4.2
BH down the line7%−0.2−1.2+0.9−0.6±4.5
FH inside-out5%+1.0+0.4+3.8+5.2±3.5

Lean FH inside-out: +6.4±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (314 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.

Arthur Rinderknech

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return+7.6±4.7+3.5+4.1
BH to the middle · return+3.4±2.5+2.2+1.2
FH to their backhand · rally+2.6±3.5+1.7+0.9
FH to their backhand · return +1+2.4±4.8+0.6+1.8
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.3±5.7+0.4+1.9
BH to their backhand · return+2.2±3.8+1.6+0.6

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1−5.9±4.0−6.3+0.4
BH to the middle · rally−3.2±2.4−2.7−0.6
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.9±4.4−3.3+0.4
BH to their forehand · rally−2.7±4.8−3.9+1.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.6±4.5−5.3+2.6

Albert Ramos

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return +1+7.0±4.7+2.5+4.5
FH to their backhand · return+6.6±4.6+4.6+1.9
BH to their forehand · rally+5.7±5.1+2.1+3.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1+3.9±3.8−1.0+4.9
FH to their forehand · rally+3.5±3.7−1.4+4.9
FH to their backhand · rally+3.3±3.3+1.7+1.6

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1−5.5±4.5−4.2−1.3
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.4±5.7−3.4+0.9
FH to their forehand · return−0.9±5.9+1.0−1.8
BH to their backhand · return +1−0.7±4.6−1.2+0.4
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.3±4.5−3.8+3.5

Against Albert Ramos-like opponents

Arthur Rinderknech vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–64.5%27.2%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Cameron Norrie, Gael Monfils, Juncheng Shang, Daniel Elahi Galan, Yoshihito Nishioka, Rafael Nadal, Federico Delbonis, Pablo Cuevas, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlos Ferrero. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.