Game plan

Botic Van De Zandschulp v Aleksandar Kovacevic

Every number combines what Botic Van De Zandschulp does well with what Aleksandar Kovacevic allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Botic Van De Zandschulp wins, best of 3 53%90%: 34%–72% · best of 5: 54%

Serve points won 65.5% / 64.8% Botic / Aleksandar · tour 63.8%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 51%serve 65.2% / 65.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Botic Van De Zandschulp's record against Aleksandar Kovacevic's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +3.5 on serve, +3.5 on return vs expectation (231 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	Botic	Aleksandar
Direction choice	−0.09 ±0.03 better than 32%	−0.12 ±0.10 better than 26%
Shot selection	+0.08 ±0.08 better than 62%	−0.31 ±0.25 better than 22%
Execution	−1.07 ±0.25 better than 23%	−0.76 ±0.71 better than 34%
Points left on the table	2.53 ±0.06 lower than 58%	2.66 ±0.17 lower than 43%

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.

Botic Van De Zandschulp serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Botic wins	v Aleksandar	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	72%	77%	76.8%±6.0	40% ▼
Body	12%	63%	63%	63.4%±10.1	0% ▼
T	47%	77%	80%	81.8%±5.1	60% ▲

Optimal v Aleksandar Kovacevic: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Botic wins	v Aleksandar	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	37%	72%	73%	72.5%±6.8	37%
Body	15%	58%	64%	58.6%±10.8	2% ▼
T	47%	70%	74%	72.6%±6.3	61% ▲

Optimal v Aleksandar Kovacevic: +1.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Aleksandar Kovacevic serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Aleksandar wins	v Botic	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	74%	72%	73.1%±6.0	36% ▼
Body	5%	67%	63%	67.3%±11.9	0% ▼
T	51%	79%	70%	74.4%±6.1	64% ▲

Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.2±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Aleksandar wins	v Botic	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	77%	71%	74.9%±6.5	57% ▲
Body	5%	66%	64%	67.2%±12.1	5%
T	51%	75%	69%	72.4%±6.1	38% ▼

Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.7 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.

Botic Van De Zandschulp returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Aleksandar	Value
FH through the middle	48%	+4.3	+1.5	−1.5	+4.3±2.3
FH crosscourt	22%	+5.5	−3.9	−3.8	−2.2±3.5
FH down the line	16%	+1.7	−1.6	−3.5	−3.4±3.9
FH slice through the middle	9%	−4.2	−1.9	−1.1	−7.2±2.1
FH slice down the line	3%	−4.3	−4.2	+0.5	−8.0±2.8

Lean FH through the middle: +4.3±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (2055 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Aleksandar	Value
BH through the middle	42%	+6.4	−0.3	−1.0	+5.1±2.2
BH crosscourt	28%	+8.8	−2.7	−1.0	+5.2±2.9
BH slice through the middle	14%	−4.2	−1.4	−1.0	−6.6±2.0
BH down the line	8%	+4.2	−0.9	−3.3	+0.1±4.0
BH slice crosscourt	6%	+0.5	−3.3	−2.3	−5.1±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (2166 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Aleksandar	Value
FH through the middle	53%	−3.5	−0.4	+1.5	−2.4±2.6
FH crosscourt	31%	−0.2	−1.8	−4.0	−6.0±4.1
FH down the line	14%	−1.8	−5.4	+1.2	−6.0±4.7
FH slice through the middle	2%	−12.7	−1.2	±0.0	−13.9±1.2

Lean FH through the middle: +1.9±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (449 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Aleksandar	Value
BH through the middle	48%	−2.9	−2.0	+0.6	−4.3±2.0
BH crosscourt	41%	+1.0	−4.5	−1.3	−4.7±2.7
BH down the line	6%	−0.2	+0.3	+2.5	+2.6±4.6
FH through the middle	2%	−2.9	−0.4	+1.5	−1.7±2.4
FH inside-out	1%	+1.0	−1.9	+1.2	+0.2±3.3

Lean BH down the line: +6.7±4.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (1291 returns charted)

Aleksandar Kovacevic returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
FH through the middle	51%	+4.3	−2.1	−0.1	+2.1±2.3
FH down the line	20%	+1.7	+2.6	−2.1	+2.2±3.7
FH crosscourt	18%	+5.5	−0.7	−3.5	+1.4±3.6
FH slice through the middle	8%	−4.2	−0.7	−1.6	−6.5±1.7
FH slice down the line	3%	−4.3	−2.3	−3.0	−9.6±2.4

Lean FH down the line: +1.2±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (164 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
BH slice through the middle	34%	−4.2	−1.9	−2.8	−8.9±2.2
BH through the middle	19%	+6.4	+0.7	+0.6	+7.7±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	16%	+0.5	−0.3	−4.7	−4.5±2.7
BH crosscourt	13%	+8.8	+1.5	−2.8	+7.6±2.7
BH slice down the line	13%	−8.4	+1.1	−3.1	−10.4±3.3

Lean BH through the middle: +10.4±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (167 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
BH through the middle	27%	−2.9	−0.6	+0.8	−2.7±2.0
FH through the middle	27%	−2.9	−0.4	+0.7	−2.6±1.9
BH crosscourt	14%	+1.0	+0.3	−1.6	−0.3±2.6
FH inside-out	13%	+1.0	+0.2	−0.4	+0.7±2.8
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−4.1	−0.1	−4.4±4.2

Lean FH inside-out: +2.9±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (132 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.

Botic Van De Zandschulp

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	+2.5±4.9	−1.9	+4.4
BH to the middle · rally	+2.3±2.1	+0.8	+1.4
FH to their forehand · rally	+1.7±2.9	+0.4	+1.4
FH to the middle · rally	+1.2±2.3	+1.1	+0.1
BH to their backhand · rally	+0.2±2.3	−0.9	+1.1
FH to the middle · return	−0.3±2.5	+1.1	−1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return	−7.0±3.4	−3.4	−3.6
BH to their backhand · return +1	−6.0±3.9	−1.4	−4.7
FH to their backhand · return	−5.3±4.6	−2.7	−2.6
FH to the middle · serve +1	−3.1±3.1	−0.7	−2.4
BH to the middle · return	−2.5±2.3	−0.7	−1.8

Aleksandar Kovacevic

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return +1	+2.1±3.9	+2.7	−0.6
BH slice to the middle · rally	+1.6±2.8	+1.3	+0.2
FH to the middle · serve +1	+1.4±3.0	+0.5	+0.9
BH to the middle · return	+0.9±2.8	−0.3	+1.3
FH to the middle · rally	+0.8±2.1	−0.1	+0.9
FH to the middle · return +1	+0.7±3.3	−2.2	+2.8

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−8.6±3.8	−7.9	−0.7
FH to their forehand · return	−5.4±5.2	−1.6	−3.8
BH slice to the middle · return	−4.5±2.9	−2.5	−2.1
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.4±2.8	−2.4	−1.0
FH to their forehand · return +1	−3.2±4.8	−2.3	−0.9

Against Aleksandar Kovacevic-like opponents

Botic Van De Zandschulp v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	62.1%	37.2%
Players most similar to Aleksandar Kovacevic	1	66.4%	39.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Zhizhen Zhang, Ethan Quinn, Felix Auger Aliassime, Zizou Bergs, Mackenzie Mcdonald, Lucas Pouille, Tim Van Rijthoven, Vasek Pospisil. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.