Game plan

Arthur Rinderknech v Flavio Cobolli

Every number combines what Arthur Rinderknech does well with what Flavio Cobolli 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 52%90%: 27%–77% · best of 5: 53%

Serve points won 67.2% / 66.8% Arthur / Flavio · tour 64.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 53%serve 67.5% / 66.9%

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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Arthur Rinderknech's record against Flavio Cobolli's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −1.7 on serve, +0.8 on return vs expectation (427 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	Arthur	Flavio
Direction choice	−0.22 ±0.10 better than 12%	−0.14 ±0.11 better than 21%
Shot selection	+0.45 ±0.17 better than 90%	−0.07 ±0.21 better than 44%
Execution	−0.47 ±0.72 better than 46%	−1.35 ±0.63 better than 14%
Points left on the table	3.12 ±0.16 lower than 14%	2.80 ±0.13 lower than 31%

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 −0.85, Flavio Cobolli +0.12. 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 serve	Now	Arthur wins	v Flavio	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	76%	73%	76.4%±5.5	43% ▼
Body	11%	63%	70%	69.6%±11.6	0% ▼
T	43%	74%	77%	76.7%±5.6	57% ▲

Optimal v Flavio Cobolli: +0.7±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +0.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Arthur wins	v Flavio	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	79%	74%	80.3%±5.4	42% ▼
Body	9%	61%	68%	65.4%±13.6	0% ▼
T	45%	73%	74%	74.4%±6.2	58% ▲

Optimal v Flavio Cobolli: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Flavio Cobolli serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Flavio wins	v Arthur	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	66%	76%	69.6%±6.4	35% ▼
Body	6%	65%	71%	72.6%±10.7	0% ▼
T	52%	74%	80%	79.4%±5.3	65% ▲

Optimal v Arthur Rinderknech: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Flavio wins	v Arthur	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	58%	70%	81%	78.5%±5.4	53% ▼
Body	8%	66%	67%	69.4%±12.1	0% ▼
T	34%	73%	80%	80.6%±5.8	47% ▲

Optimal v Arthur Rinderknech: +0.6±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.1 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

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Flavio	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.3	+1.8	+0.6	+6.6±2.7
FH down the line	23%	+1.7	+5.2	−2.4	+4.5±4.4
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−1.0	+4.4	+8.9±4.4
FH slice through the middle	9%	−4.2	−3.8	+0.1	−7.9±2.3
FH slice down the line	5%	−4.3	−1.0	−1.0	−6.2±2.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.9±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (319 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Flavio	Value
BH through the middle	44%	+6.4	+2.7	−0.6	+8.5±2.4
BH crosscourt	23%	+8.8	+0.2	+2.5	+11.5±3.3
BH down the line	12%	+4.2	−1.0	+4.3	+7.5±4.6
BH slice through the middle	10%	−4.2	+0.2	−2.4	−6.4±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	7%	+0.5	−3.9	−1.6	−5.0±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.8±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (346 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Flavio	Value
FH through the middle	39%	−3.5	+2.9	−0.1	−0.7±2.7
FH down the line	33%	−1.8	+1.2	−1.6	−2.2±4.6
FH crosscourt	28%	−0.2	+2.6	−2.9	−0.6±4.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +0.6±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (72 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Flavio	Value
BH through the middle	39%	−2.9	+0.2	+0.4	−2.3±2.3
BH crosscourt	23%	+1.0	+2.2	−0.3	+2.9±3.0
FH through the middle	15%	−2.9	−1.0	−0.1	−3.9±2.3
FH inside-in	11%	+0.6	+1.9	−2.9	−0.5±4.3
BH down the line	9%	−0.2	−4.0	+1.6	−2.6±4.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.1±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted)

Flavio Cobolli returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Arthur	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−0.5	−1.0	+2.8±2.6
FH down the line	17%	+1.7	+0.5	−1.5	+0.7±4.5
FH slice through the middle	17%	−4.2	+0.6	+0.8	−2.7±2.3
FH crosscourt	16%	+5.5	−0.9	−3.6	+1.0±4.4
FH slice down the line	8%	−4.3	−2.1	+0.6	−5.8±2.8

Lean FH through the middle: +2.4±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (365 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Arthur	Value
BH through the middle	32%	+6.4	−3.0	−1.1	+2.4±2.6
BH slice through the middle	19%	−4.2	−1.0	±0.0	−5.2±2.5
BH crosscourt	18%	+8.8	+0.2	+1.1	+10.0±3.5
BH down the line	13%	+4.2	+0.1	+0.2	+4.6±4.6
BH slice down the line	11%	−8.4	−0.4	−1.6	−10.4±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +9.4±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (436 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Arthur	Value
FH through the middle	59%	−3.5	−0.7	±0.0	−4.2±2.8
FH down the line	21%	−1.8	−2.3	+1.3	−2.8±4.5
FH crosscourt	20%	−0.2	−2.3	+3.8	+1.3±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.1±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (122 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Arthur	Value
BH through the middle	41%	−2.9	−2.3	±0.0	−5.3±2.3
BH crosscourt	28%	+1.0	−2.8	+0.9	−0.9±3.0
BH down the line	12%	−0.2	−3.2	−1.1	−4.6±4.6
FH through the middle	11%	−2.9	−0.6	±0.0	−3.5±2.3
FH inside-out	5%	+1.0	−0.1	+1.3	+2.2±3.4

Lean FH inside-out: +5.4±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (297 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 hard. Each player's hard record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Arthur Rinderknech

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · return +1	+1.5±4.0	+0.9	+0.6
FH to their backhand · return	+1.1±5.6	+2.9	−1.8
BH to their backhand · return	+1.0±4.0	−1.3	+2.4
BH to the middle · return	+0.7±2.8	+2.6	−1.9
BH to the middle · return +1	+0.5±3.6	−1.6	+2.1
BH to their backhand · rally	+0.4±3.2	−0.8	+1.2

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−5.7±4.5	−0.5	−5.2
FH to the middle · rally	−4.2±3.0	−3.2	−1.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−3.9±4.7	−4.0	+0.1
FH to their forehand · return	−3.5±6.2	−4.6	+1.1
BH to their forehand · rally	−2.7±6.0	−3.0	+0.3

Flavio Cobolli

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	+7.0±5.8	−0.6	+7.6
FH to the middle · return +1	+5.7±4.0	+2.7	+3.0
FH to the middle · serve +1	+4.6±3.7	+2.2	+2.4
BH to their backhand · rally	+2.9±3.0	−0.1	+3.0
FH to their backhand · rally	+2.8±3.6	+0.6	+2.2
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+1.6±4.6	+2.3	−0.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	−6.8±3.0	−5.0	−1.8
FH to their forehand · return +1	−5.9±6.0	−4.9	−1.0
BH to their backhand · return	−4.0±4.2	−4.5	+0.6
FH to their backhand · return	−3.8±5.8	−3.5	−0.3
FH to the middle · return	−3.4±3.2	−2.8	−0.7

Against Flavio Cobolli-like opponents

Arthur Rinderknech v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	64.5%	27.2%
Players most similar to Flavio Cobolli	3	60.5%	29.8%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jannik Sinner, Jiri Lehecka, Gael Monfils, Marcos Giron, Thiago Seyboth Wild, Aleksandar Vukic, Fabio Fognini, Kyle Edmund, Philipp Kohlschreiber, Gustavo Kuerten. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.