RallyIQ

Game plan

Bianca Andreescu v Marta Kostyuk

Every number combines what Bianca Andreescu does well with what Marta Kostyuk allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Bianca Andreescu wins, best of 3 15%90%: 4%–36% · best of 5: 10%
Serve points won 55.2% / 63.2% Bianca / Marta · tour 56.4%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 18%serve 55.6% / 62.5%

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 Bianca Andreescu's record against Marta Kostyuk's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −3.4 on serve, −7.8 on return vs expectation (760 points); head-to-head: +4.0 on serve, +7.5 on return vs expectation (325 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

CareerBiancaMarta
Direction choice−0.35 ±0.03
better than 4%
−0.06 ±0.05
better than 43%
Shot selection−0.08 ±0.07
better than 36%
+0.13 ±0.09
better than 60%
Execution−0.56 ±0.16
better than 31%
−0.34 ±0.29
better than 41%
Points left on the table3.03 ±0.04
lower than 10%
2.69 ±0.07
lower than 36%

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: Bianca Andreescu −1.30, Marta Kostyuk −1.10. 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.

Bianca Andreescu serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowBianca winsv MartaMatchupOptimal
Wide38%67%63%64.4%±3.339%
Body30%59%57%58.5%±4.614% ▼
T32%72%68%72.4%±3.647% ▲

Optimal v Marta Kostyuk: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +7.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowBianca winsv MartaMatchupOptimal
Wide39%67%64%64.7%±3.849% ▲
Body27%57%58%58.9%±5.112% ▼
T34%65%61%61.5%±3.739% ▲

Optimal v Marta Kostyuk: +0.1±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Marta Kostyuk serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMarta winsv BiancaMatchupOptimal
Wide36%70%68%71.9%±3.351% ▲
Body24%60%56%59.0%±4.49% ▼
T40%72%66%69.8%±3.740%

Optimal v Bianca Andreescu: +1.5±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMarta winsv BiancaMatchupOptimal
Wide47%73%68%74.9%±3.262% ▲
Body26%58%57%59.6%±4.511% ▼
T27%64%64%64.1%±4.427%

Optimal v Bianca Andreescu: +1.0±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +6.9 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.

Bianca Andreescu returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MartaValue
FH through the middle51%+4.2+0.7+0.7+5.6±1.5
FH down the line16%+1.5−3.9−2.7−5.1±3.3
FH slice through the middle13%−6.7−1.5−0.7−8.9±2.1
FH crosscourt13%+5.3−2.7−3.9−1.3±3.1
FH slice crosscourt4%−6.6−3.1−3.3−13.0±2.7

Lean FH through the middle: +5.8±1.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (2739 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MartaValue
BH through the middle55%+6.0−0.2−0.2+5.7±1.3
BH crosscourt17%+7.7−1.3−1.5+5.0±2.3
BH down the line16%+2.2+0.1−2.8−0.5±3.3
BH slice through the middle7%−6.2−3.5−2.3−12.0±2.2
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.2−3.7−3.6−11.4±3.0

Lean BH through the middle: +3.4±0.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (2846 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MartaValue
FH through the middle51%−3.2+0.2+0.3−2.7±1.9
FH down the line21%−0.6+0.8−2.4−2.2±4.3
FH crosscourt19%+0.5+0.9−2.3−0.8±3.5
FH slice through the middle6%−15.2−1.0+0.3−15.9±2.4
FH slice crosscourt2%−14.9−1.6−1.3−17.9±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.6±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (778 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MartaValue
BH through the middle48%−2.6+0.1−0.1−2.6±1.7
BH crosscourt20%+1.5−1.1−2.8−2.5±2.7
BH down the line19%−0.5+1.7−1.3−0.1±4.4
FH through the middle5%−2.7+1.6+0.3−0.8±2.2
FH inside-out3%+1.4−1.1−2.4−2.2±3.9
FH inside-in3%+0.7+1.8−2.3+0.3±4.0

Lean FH inside-in: +2.3±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (1462 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Marta Kostyuk returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BiancaValue
FH through the middle41%+4.2+0.6−0.4+4.3±1.4
FH crosscourt19%+5.3+0.5−0.7+5.1±2.7
FH slice through the middle17%−6.7+1.4+0.2−5.1±1.8
FH down the line12%+1.5+4.8−2.0+4.3±3.3
FH slice crosscourt8%−6.6+0.9−2.7−8.4±2.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (1346 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BiancaValue
BH through the middle52%+6.0−0.2−0.9+4.9±1.4
BH crosscourt29%+7.7−2.1−1.2+4.4±2.2
BH down the line10%+2.2−1.1−4.7−3.7±3.6
BH slice through the middle4%−6.2−0.1+0.1−6.2±2.3
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.2−0.7−4.8−9.6±2.9

Lean BH through the middle: +2.2±1.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (969 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BiancaValue
FH through the middle41%−3.2+1.5−0.5−2.2±2.2
FH crosscourt28%+0.5−1.0−3.4−3.9±3.6
FH down the line25%−0.6+0.7−0.7−0.6±4.4
FH slice through the middle4%−15.2+0.6−0.3−14.9±2.4
FH slice crosscourt2%−14.9+0.6+0.4−13.9±2.2

Lean FH down the line: +2.5±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (362 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BiancaValue
BH through the middle46%−2.6−2.6−0.8−6.0±1.7
BH crosscourt30%+1.5−1.1−1.4−1.0±2.6
BH down the line19%−0.5+1.0−3.0−2.6±4.2
FH inside-out2%+1.4±0.0−0.7+0.7±3.2
FH through the middle1%−2.7−0.2−0.5−3.4±1.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.6±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (471 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.

Bianca Andreescu

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH volley to their forehand · rally+4.2±4.8+3.7+0.5
FH volley to their backhand · rally+2.3±5.0+1.5+0.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.8±1.8+2.1−0.3
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.5±1.9+1.5±0.0
BH to the middle · return +1+0.8±1.4−0.2+1.0
BH to their backhand · return +1+0.8±1.9−0.2+0.9

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their forehand · rally−7.2±2.9−4.1−3.1
FH slice to their forehand · return−7.0±2.7−3.1−3.9
FH to their backhand · return−5.7±2.3−2.7−3.0
FH to their forehand · return−5.0±2.2−1.2−3.8
FH slice to their forehand · rally−4.9±3.6−4.9±0.0

Marta Kostyuk

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
Smash to their backhand · rally+3.9±5.3+2.3+1.6
FH slice to the middle · return +1+2.5±2.4+2.5±0.0
FH slice to the middle · return+1.4±1.7+1.2+0.2
FH slice to their backhand · rally+1.2±3.3+2.4−1.2
FH to the middle · serve +1+0.8±1.3+1.6−0.8
BH to their backhand · rally+0.8±1.3+1.5−0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their forehand · rally−9.1±3.1−4.4−4.7
BH to their forehand · return +1−5.7±3.5−2.9−2.8
FH volley to their backhand · rally−4.1±5.4−2.2−1.9
BH to their forehand · return−3.9±2.6+0.2−4.1
BH to their forehand · serve +1−3.7±3.3−2.6−1.1

Against Marta Kostyuk-like opponents

Bianca Andreescu vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–58.8%43.5%
Players most similar to Marta Kostyuk5 53.4%35.3%
Marta Kostyuk (charted head-to-head)2 60.1%49.2%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alexandra Eala, Diana Shnaider, Xin Yu Wang, Leylah Fernandez, Jasmine Paolini, Olga Danilovic, Kaja Juvan, Katie Boulter, Nao Hibino. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.

Charted head-to-head