RallyIQ

Game plan

Barbora Krejcikova v Caroline Garcia

Every number combines what Barbora Krejcikova does well with what Caroline Garcia allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Barbora Krejcikova wins, best of 3 60%90%: 29%–85% · best of 5: 63%
Serve points won 62.2% / 60.2% Barbora / Caroline · tour 55.0%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 60%serve 62.2% / 60.3%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Barbora Krejcikova's record against Caroline Garcia's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +0.2 on serve, +0.2 on return vs expectation (612 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

CareerBarboraCaroline
Direction choice+0.19 ±0.09
better than 84%
+0.13 ±0.06
better than 76%
Shot selection−0.47 ±0.17
better than 11%
+0.74 ±0.11
better than 98%
Execution−0.35 ±0.52
better than 40%
−1.52 ±0.45
better than 10%
Points left on the table2.49 ±0.13
lower than 66%
2.53 ±0.09
lower than 61%

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: Barbora Krejcikova −0.53, Caroline Garcia −2.88. 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.

Barbora Krejcikova serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowBarbora winsv CarolineMatchupOptimal
Wide41%70%70%73.8%±5.038% ▼
Body12%64%58%65.4%±7.80% ▼
T47%75%74%80.7%±4.562% ▲

Optimal v Caroline Garcia: +0.9±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowBarbora winsv CarolineMatchupOptimal
Wide51%67%69%71.1%±5.746% ▼
Body10%57%56%57.3%±9.30% ▼
T39%67%69%71.6%±5.654% ▲

Optimal v Caroline Garcia: +0.5±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Caroline Garcia serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowCaroline winsv BarboraMatchupOptimal
Wide35%70%71%74.9%±5.050% ▲
Body16%55%58%55.5%±8.21% ▼
T49%67%67%66.6%±5.749%

Optimal v Barbora Krejcikova: +1.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowCaroline winsv BarboraMatchupOptimal
Wide40%75%70%78.4%±5.155% ▲
Body12%59%56%58.6%±9.30% ▼
T49%64%62%62.3%±5.945% ▼

Optimal v Barbora Krejcikova: +0.8±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +10.1 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.

Barbora Krejcikova returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CarolineValue
FH slice through the middle29%−6.7+3.4−1.0−4.3±2.4
FH through the middle24%+4.2−4.6−0.5−1.0±2.5
FH crosscourt17%+5.3−5.2−2.1−2.0±4.0
FH slice crosscourt15%−6.6+1.8+1.2−3.6±2.7
FH down the line11%+1.5−4.2−0.5−3.2±4.6

Lean FH through the middle: +2.1±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (564 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CarolineValue
BH through the middle49%+6.0+0.1+0.1+6.3±2.1
BH crosscourt22%+7.7−0.4+0.3+7.6±3.3
BH down the line11%+2.2+0.7−3.0−0.1±4.5
BH slice through the middle10%−6.2−2.0−0.8−9.1±2.6
BH slice crosscourt4%−4.2+0.4−2.7−6.4±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.5±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (493 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CarolineValue
FH through the middle47%−3.2−0.8−0.9−4.8±3.0
FH crosscourt36%+0.5−1.0−4.4−4.9±4.4
FH down the line17%−0.6−1.4+0.4−1.6±5.1

Lean FH down the line: +2.7±4.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (142 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CarolineValue
BH through the middle47%−2.6−0.8+1.1−2.3±2.2
BH crosscourt38%+1.5−1.3+2.4+2.7±3.1
BH down the line12%−0.5+0.6−1.5−1.5±5.1
FH through the middle2%−2.7−1.4−0.9−4.9±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (281 returns charted)

Caroline Garcia returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BarboraValue
FH through the middle44%+4.2−2.7+0.2+1.6±2.4
FH crosscourt29%+5.3−1.7+1.1+4.7±4.0
FH down the line18%+1.5−0.8−3.1−2.3±4.4
FH slice through the middle5%−6.7−0.3+0.8−6.2±2.5
FH slice crosscourt3%−6.6−0.3+0.7−6.2±2.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.7±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (536 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BarboraValue
BH through the middle46%+6.0−2.7+0.4+3.7±2.2
BH crosscourt32%+7.7−1.6−1.9+4.2±3.1
BH down the line10%+2.2−5.8+1.4−2.3±4.5
BH slice through the middle6%−6.2−2.2−1.3−9.7±2.5
BH slice crosscourt4%−4.2−0.8−2.8−7.8±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.6±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (457 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BarboraValue
FH through the middle43%−3.2+2.0−0.9−2.1±2.9
FH crosscourt32%+0.5+2.3+0.9+3.7±4.5
FH down the line25%−0.6+2.8+1.2+3.5±5.1

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (114 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BarboraValue
BH crosscourt46%+1.5+1.4−2.1+0.8±3.3
BH through the middle35%−2.6+0.3−0.6−3.0±2.4
BH down the line19%−0.5−1.5−0.4−2.4±5.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.9±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (224 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.

Barbora Krejcikova

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1+6.1±5.1+2.1+4.1
FH to their backhand · return+4.5±5.4+1.0+3.5
BH to their forehand · rally+3.7±6.1+2.6+1.1
BH to their backhand · rally+3.5±3.8−0.7+4.2
BH to their forehand · return +1+2.4±6.4−0.9+3.2
BH to their forehand · serve +1+1.8±6.4−0.8+2.6

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return +1−7.7±3.2−6.2−1.5
BH to the middle · rally−5.6±3.0−2.9−2.7
FH to their forehand · return−5.6±5.6−4.0−1.6
FH to the middle · return +1−5.1±3.4−2.9−2.2
FH to the middle · rally−4.1±3.2−3.7−0.4

Caroline Garcia

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return+4.6±5.6+1.2+3.3
FH to their forehand · rally+0.4±4.3+0.7−0.3
BH to the middle · serve +1+0.3±3.1−1.4+1.8
BH to their forehand · return+0.2±5.7+0.1+0.1
FH to their backhand · return+0.2±5.3+2.6−2.4
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.6±4.9+3.7−4.4

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return +1−9.6±6.4−5.8−3.8
BH to the middle · rally−8.4±3.0−5.0−3.4
FH to their backhand · return +1−6.8±5.4+0.5−7.3
FH to the middle · rally−6.4±3.2−2.6−3.9
FH to their backhand · rally−6.2±4.8−2.7−3.5

Against Caroline Garcia-like opponents

Barbora Krejcikova vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–60.6%40.5%
Players most similar to Caroline Garcia3 60.1%39.9%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Elena Rybakina, Lulu Sun, Veronika Kudermetova, Arianne Hartono, Petra Kvitova, Rebecca Marino, Camila Giorgi, Anett Kontaveit, Coco Vandeweghe. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.