Game plan

Barbora Krejcikova v Sara Errani

Every number combines what Barbora Krejcikova does well with what Sara Errani 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 80%90%: 54%–94% · best of 5: 85%

Serve points won 56.9% / 50.7% Barbora / Sara · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 80%serve 56.9% / 50.7%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Sara Errani'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	Barbora	Sara
Direction choice	+0.19 ±0.09 better than 84%	−0.23 ±0.11 better than 14%
Shot selection	−0.47 ±0.17 better than 11%	−0.34 ±0.17 better than 19%
Execution	−0.35 ±0.52 better than 40%	+1.67 ±0.48 better than 97%
Points left on the table	2.49 ±0.13 lower than 66%	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 48%

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 +1.31, Sara Errani +0.36. 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 serve	Now	Barbora wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	70%	60%	64.6%±6.1	29% ▼
Body	12%	64%	66%	72.1%±8.1	9% ▼
T	47%	75%	64%	71.5%±6.1	62% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +0.3±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Barbora wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	67%	58%	60.0%±6.9	38% ▼
Body	10%	57%	54%	55.2%±10.4	8% ▼
T	39%	67%	69%	71.5%±6.0	54% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +1.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +7.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Sara Errani serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Barbora	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	35%	54%	71%	59.9%±6.7	50% ▲
Body	45%	50%	58%	50.2%±7.3	30% ▼
T	20%	53%	67%	52.6%±7.8	20%

Optimal v Barbora Krejcikova: +1.2±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +5.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Barbora	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	37%	54%	70%	58.9%±6.8	52% ▲
Body	46%	53%	56%	53.1%±7.5	31% ▼
T	17%	53%	62%	51.0%±8.9	17%

Optimal v Barbora Krejcikova: +0.5±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.9 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

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH slice through the middle	29%	−6.7	+3.4	+0.1	−3.1±1.9
FH through the middle	24%	+4.2	−4.6	+0.5	±0.0±2.7
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.3	−5.2	+5.9	+6.0±3.8
FH slice crosscourt	15%	−6.6	+1.8	±0.0	−4.8±1.9
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	−4.2	+6.0	+3.4±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.6±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (564 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	+0.1	+1.7	+7.8±2.2
BH crosscourt	22%	+7.7	−0.4	+4.0	+11.3±3.0
BH down the line	11%	+2.2	+0.7	+6.9	+9.8±4.5
BH slice through the middle	10%	−6.2	−2.0	+0.7	−7.5±2.1
BH slice crosscourt	4%	−4.2	+0.4	−0.4	−4.1±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.2±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (493 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	47%	−3.2	−0.8	−0.9	−4.9±3.1
FH crosscourt	36%	+0.5	−1.0	+3.9	+3.5±4.4
FH down the line	17%	−0.6	−1.4	+7.1	+5.1±5.0

Lean FH down the line: +5.3±4.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (142 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.6	−0.8	−0.5	−3.9±2.6
BH crosscourt	38%	+1.5	−1.3	+0.3	+0.6±3.5
BH down the line	12%	−0.5	+0.6	+3.4	+3.4±5.2
FH through the middle	2%	−2.7	−1.4	−0.9	−4.9±2.2

Lean BH down the line: +4.7±4.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (281 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Sara Errani returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Barbora	Value
FH through the middle	42%	+4.2	+2.7	+0.2	+7.0±2.5
FH down the line	23%	+1.5	+4.7	−3.1	+3.2±4.5
FH crosscourt	16%	+5.3	+0.6	+1.1	+7.0±4.3
FH slice through the middle	13%	−6.7	+0.5	+0.8	−5.4±2.6
FH slice down the line	6%	−10.5	−0.1	−1.6	−12.1±3.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (394 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Barbora	Value
BH through the middle	37%	+6.0	+1.9	+0.4	+8.4±2.4
BH crosscourt	34%	+7.7	+1.5	−1.9	+7.3±3.2
BH slice through the middle	13%	−6.2	+1.7	−1.3	−5.9±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	7%	−4.2	−0.1	−2.8	−7.1±2.9
BH slice down the line	5%	−12.5	+0.5	+1.4	−10.6±3.1

Lean BH through the middle: +4.3±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (315 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Barbora	Value
FH through the middle	45%	−3.2	+2.0	−0.9	−2.1±2.9
FH crosscourt	30%	+0.5	+0.3	+0.9	+1.8±4.4
FH down the line	26%	−0.6	+0.9	+1.2	+1.6±5.1

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.8±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Barbora	Value
BH crosscourt	55%	+1.5	+1.4	−2.1	+0.8±3.4
BH through the middle	29%	−2.6	+0.5	−0.6	−2.8±2.5
FH inside-out	8%	+1.4	+0.6	+1.2	+3.2±3.8
FH through the middle	4%	−2.7	+0.3	−0.9	−3.3±2.1
BH down the line	3%	−0.5	−0.6	−0.4	−1.6±4.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.1±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 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

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	+9.7±4.8	+1.0	+8.7
BH to their forehand · return	+6.4±5.6	−2.8	+9.2
BH to their forehand · rally	+5.4±5.0	+2.6	+2.8
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.4±4.6	+2.1	+2.4
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.1±6.3	−0.8	+5.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+3.6±4.6	+0.9	+2.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return +1	−7.3±3.1	−6.2	−1.1
FH to the middle · rally	−3.9±2.9	−3.7	−0.1
FH to the middle · return	−3.8±3.2	−4.1	+0.3
BH slice to the middle · rally	−3.5±3.1	−2.1	−1.4
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−2.9±3.7	−2.3	−0.6

Sara Errani

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	+5.5±5.0	+4.1	+1.4
FH to their forehand · return	+3.9±5.7	+0.5	+3.3
FH to the middle · serve +1	+3.7±3.2	+3.4	+0.3
FH slice to the middle · rally	+3.4±3.8	+3.4	±0.0
BH to the middle · serve +1	+3.3±2.9	+1.6	+1.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+3.2±4.9	+3.6	−0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	−7.2±5.2	+0.1	−7.3
BH to their backhand · rally	−3.0±3.2	+0.6	−3.6
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−2.6±3.8	−1.1	−1.6
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−2.3±4.0	+2.2	−4.4
BH to the middle · return +1	−2.3±3.2	+3.3	−5.5

Against Sara Errani-like opponents

Barbora Krejcikova v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	60.6%	40.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Tamara Zidansek, Viktorija Golubic, Daria Kasatkina, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Lesia Tsurenko, Alize Cornet, Kateryna Baindl, Madison Brengle, Tereza Martincova. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.