Game plan
Belinda Bencic v Na Li
Every number combines what Belinda Bencic does well with what Na Li allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Belinda Bencic's record against Na Li's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −2.5 on serve, +1.5 on return vs expectation (652 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 | Belinda | Na |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.11 ±0.04 better than 74% | +0.21 ±0.11 better than 85% |
| Shot selection | +0.12 ±0.07 better than 58% | +0.55 ±0.15 better than 95% |
| Execution | +0.91 ±0.34 better than 89% | −0.31 ±0.59 better than 44% |
| Points left on the table | 2.41 ±0.06 lower than 75% | 2.18 ±0.16 lower than 95% |
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.
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.
Belinda Bencic serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Belinda wins | v Na | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 50% | 66% | 71% | 70.7%±5.8 | 65% ▲ |
| Body | 18% | 65% | 54% | 62.3%±8.6 | 3% ▼ |
| T | 32% | 71% | 63% | 66.1%±7.8 | 32% |
Optimal v Na Li: +0.2±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Belinda wins | v Na | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 70% | 70% | 74.6%±6.5 | 41% ▼ |
| Body | 14% | 63% | 53% | 60.6%±9.8 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 44% | 69% | 65% | 69.6%±6.1 | 59% ▲ |
Optimal v Na Li: +0.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Na Li serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Na wins | v Belinda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 62% | 67% | 63.3%±6.4 | 42% |
| Body | 18% | 58% | 55% | 56.0%±9.0 | 3% ▼ |
| T | 40% | 66% | 72% | 71.0%±6.3 | 55% ▲ |
Optimal v Belinda Bencic: +1.0±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Na wins | v Belinda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 32% | 69% | 69% | 72.7%±6.7 | 47% ▲ |
| Body | 6% | 61% | 53% | 58.2%±12.4 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 62% | 64% | 67% | 66.3%±5.6 | 53% ▼ |
Optimal v Belinda Bencic: +1.1±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.8 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.
Belinda Bencic returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Na | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 32% | +4.2 | ±0.0 | +0.7 | +4.9±2.4 |
| FH slice through the middle | 26% | −6.7 | −0.4 | +0.1 | −7.0±2.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 18% | +5.3 | +0.9 | +1.7 | +8.0±3.8 |
| FH down the line | 13% | +1.5 | +2.7 | −0.6 | +3.6±4.4 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 9% | −6.6 | −0.2 | +0.8 | −6.0±2.5 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +7.1±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (1174 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Na | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 47% | +6.0 | +0.5 | +2.1 | +8.6±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 34% | +7.7 | −2.0 | +2.3 | +8.0±3.1 |
| BH down the line | 9% | +2.2 | +1.2 | −0.1 | +3.2±4.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | −6.2 | ±0.0 | −0.6 | −6.9±2.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 4% | −4.2 | −1.8 | −0.3 | −6.3±2.6 |
Lean BH through the middle: +2.3±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (857 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Na | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | −3.2 | +0.6 | +0.7 | −1.9±2.8 |
| FH crosscourt | 25% | +0.5 | −2.7 | −1.0 | −3.1±4.2 |
| FH down the line | 23% | −0.6 | +3.2 | +2.4 | +5.0±4.9 |
| FH slice through the middle | 5% | −15.2 | +0.2 | ±0.0 | −15.0±1.7 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 3% | −14.9 | +0.3 | ±0.0 | −14.6±1.5 |
Lean FH down the line: +6.6±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (383 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Na | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 44% | +1.5 | +2.8 | ±0.0 | +4.3±3.1 |
| BH through the middle | 41% | −2.6 | −0.3 | −0.6 | −3.4±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 14% | −0.5 | +5.1 | −1.0 | +3.6±5.2 |
| FH through the middle | 1% | −2.7 | +0.3 | +0.7 | −1.7±2.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.3±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (525 returns charted)
Na Li returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Belinda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 51% | +4.2 | −2.7 | +1.2 | +2.7±2.2 |
| FH down the line | 27% | +1.5 | −0.7 | −4.7 | −3.8±4.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 18% | +5.3 | −4.6 | +1.7 | +2.4±3.7 |
| FH slice down the line | 2% | −10.5 | −0.2 | −3.9 | −14.6±2.8 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −6.7 | −1.4 | −0.9 | −9.0±2.0 |
Lean FH through the middle: +2.4±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (292 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Belinda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 41% | +6.0 | −0.6 | −0.8 | +4.6±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 35% | +7.7 | −2.0 | −2.5 | +3.2±3.2 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +2.2 | −0.9 | −2.4 | −1.1±3.7 |
| BH slice through the middle | 7% | −6.2 | +0.3 | −0.5 | −6.5±2.2 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | −4.2 | −2.5 | −2.8 | −9.5±2.7 |
Lean BH through the middle: +2.6±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (167 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Belinda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 39% | −3.2 | −2.2 | +0.9 | −4.5±2.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 31% | +0.5 | −2.8 | +4.1 | +1.9±3.7 |
| FH down the line | 30% | −0.6 | +0.3 | −2.8 | −3.1±4.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +4.0±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (80 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Belinda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 53% | +1.5 | −1.6 | +0.3 | +0.3±3.2 |
| BH through the middle | 37% | −2.6 | −1.7 | −0.6 | −4.9±2.4 |
| BH down the line | 10% | −0.5 | +0.4 | +1.9 | +1.8±4.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (115 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.
Belinda Bencic
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · return | +8.2±6.0 | +9.1 | −0.8 |
| FH to their backhand · return | +6.8±5.5 | +3.2 | +3.6 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +6.6±5.2 | +1.3 | +5.4 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +6.2±5.5 | +3.6 | +2.6 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +5.5±4.5 | +4.7 | +0.8 |
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | +5.0±6.3 | +4.4 | +0.6 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.6±4.9 | −0.6 | −4.1 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | −3.5±3.2 | −1.2 | −2.2 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | −2.4±5.2 | −2.5 | +0.1 |
| FH to the middle · return | −2.2±3.4 | −2.9 | +0.7 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −1.0±4.5 | −0.5 | −0.5 |
Na Li
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +5.3±4.4 | +1.9 | +3.4 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +4.4±5.0 | +2.6 | +1.8 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +3.4±5.2 | −0.6 | +4.0 |
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.3±6.0 | −0.7 | +4.0 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +1.8±3.0 | +1.6 | +0.2 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +1.4±4.2 | +2.5 | −1.1 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −4.6±5.4 | −5.3 | +0.7 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −4.4±4.2 | −3.9 | −0.5 |
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.2±6.2 | −1.9 | −2.3 |
| BH to the middle · return | −3.9±3.2 | −2.8 | −1.1 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −3.4±5.2 | −0.7 | −2.7 |
Against Na Li-like opponents
| Belinda Bencic v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 59.6% | 43.7% |
| Players most similar to Na Li | 4 | 57.3% | 43.2% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Naomi Osaka, Ashlyn Krueger, Rebecca Sramkova, Shuai Zhang, Katerina Siniakova, Venus Williams, Qiang Wang, Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.