Game plan
Brandon Nakashima v Botic Van De Zandschulp
Every number combines what Brandon Nakashima does well with what Botic Van De Zandschulp 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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Brandon Nakashima's record against Botic Van De Zandschulp's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +4.6 on serve, −3.5 on return vs expectation (907 points); head-to-head: +7.8 on serve, −5.2 on return vs expectation (266 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 | Brandon | Botic |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.01 ±0.07 better than 54% | −0.09 ±0.03 better than 32% |
| Shot selection | −0.11 ±0.14 better than 38% | +0.08 ±0.08 better than 62% |
| Execution | +0.79 ±0.43 better than 91% | −1.07 ±0.25 better than 23% |
| Points left on the table | 2.50 ±0.10 lower than 60% | 2.53 ±0.06 lower than 58% |
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: Brandon Nakashima −0.04, Botic Van De Zandschulp +0.49. 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.
Brandon Nakashima serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Brandon wins | v Botic | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 52% | 73% | 72% | 71.4%±3.6 | 44% ▼ |
| Body | 5% | 64% | 63% | 63.7%±8.5 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 78% | 70% | 73.4%±3.8 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.1±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Brandon wins | v Botic | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 72% | 71% | 70.1%±3.8 | 67% ▲ |
| Body | 9% | 69% | 64% | 70.1%±7.1 | 2% ▼ |
| T | 37% | 72% | 69% | 69.2%±4.3 | 31% ▼ |
Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.2±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +0.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Botic Van De Zandschulp serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Botic wins | v Brandon | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 41% | 72% | 74% | 73.6%±3.6 | 40% ▼ |
| Body | 12% | 63% | 66% | 66.2%±7.6 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 77% | 79% | 80.4%±3.2 | 60% ▲ |
Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +1.0±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Botic wins | v Brandon | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 37% | 72% | 75% | 74.7%±4.0 | 37% |
| Body | 15% | 58% | 67% | 62.0%±7.4 | 2% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 70% | 74% | 72.6%±3.8 | 61% ▲ |
Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +1.0±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +2.9 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.
Brandon Nakashima returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Botic | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 48% | +4.3 | −1.1 | −0.1 | +3.1±1.7 |
| FH down the line | 19% | +1.7 | −1.5 | −2.1 | −1.9±3.4 |
| FH slice through the middle | 14% | −4.2 | +1.0 | −1.6 | −4.8±1.9 |
| FH crosscourt | 11% | +5.5 | +0.6 | −3.5 | +2.7±3.6 |
| FH slice down the line | 4% | −4.3 | +0.9 | −3.0 | −6.5±3.0 |
Lean FH through the middle: +2.8±1.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (771 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Botic | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 38% | +6.4 | +0.2 | +0.6 | +7.3±1.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 29% | +8.8 | +1.2 | −2.8 | +7.3±2.5 |
| BH slice through the middle | 12% | −4.2 | +0.1 | −2.8 | −6.8±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +4.2 | −1.3 | −5.8 | −2.9±4.2 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 8% | +0.5 | −3.1 | −4.7 | −7.3±2.8 |
Lean BH through the middle: +4.5±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (648 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Botic | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 62% | −3.5 | −1.0 | +0.7 | −3.8±2.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | −0.2 | +3.2 | −2.5 | +0.5±3.8 |
| FH down the line | 17% | −1.8 | −0.7 | −0.4 | −2.9±3.9 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.3±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Botic | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 50% | −2.9 | −0.6 | +0.8 | −2.7±1.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 34% | +1.0 | +1.9 | −1.6 | +1.3±2.6 |
| BH down the line | 11% | −0.2 | +0.7 | −0.1 | +0.4±4.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 4% | −11.3 | −1.2 | −0.9 | −13.4±2.2 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 2% | −4.0 | −0.1 | −2.5 | −6.6±2.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (387 returns charted)
Botic Van De Zandschulp returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 48% | +4.3 | +1.5 | +1.7 | +7.4±1.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 22% | +5.5 | −3.9 | +3.4 | +5.0±3.2 |
| FH down the line | 16% | +1.7 | −1.6 | −1.2 | −1.1±3.5 |
| FH slice through the middle | 9% | −4.2 | −1.9 | −0.4 | −6.5±2.1 |
| FH slice down the line | 3% | −4.3 | −4.2 | +0.5 | −8.0±3.2 |
Lean FH through the middle: +3.9±1.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (2055 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 42% | +6.4 | −0.3 | −0.3 | +5.8±1.6 |
| BH crosscourt | 28% | +8.8 | −2.7 | +0.4 | +6.5±2.4 |
| BH slice through the middle | 14% | −4.2 | −1.4 | +0.4 | −5.2±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +4.2 | −0.9 | −0.3 | +3.0±4.0 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | +0.5 | −3.3 | +2.1 | −0.6±2.9 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (2166 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 53% | −3.5 | −0.4 | −1.0 | −4.9±2.3 |
| FH crosscourt | 31% | −0.2 | −1.8 | +1.5 | −0.5±4.0 |
| FH down the line | 14% | −1.8 | −5.4 | +1.7 | −5.5±4.7 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −12.7 | −1.2 | +0.2 | −13.7±1.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.2±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (449 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 48% | −2.9 | −2.0 | +2.3 | −2.6±1.6 |
| BH crosscourt | 41% | +1.0 | −4.5 | −0.2 | −3.6±2.2 |
| BH down the line | 6% | −0.2 | +0.3 | +1.4 | +1.5±4.7 |
| FH through the middle | 2% | −2.9 | −0.4 | −1.0 | −4.2±2.1 |
| FH inside-out | 1% | +1.0 | −1.9 | +1.7 | +0.7±3.4 |
Lean BH down the line: +4.4±4.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (1291 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.
Brandon Nakashima
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return +1 | +5.5±2.0 | +3.2 | +2.3 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | +3.7±1.7 | +3.0 | +0.7 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.3±2.1 | +4.0 | −0.7 |
| FH slice to the middle · rally | +3.1±2.6 | +1.4 | +1.8 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | +2.7±1.8 | +1.5 | +1.2 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +1.9±1.8 | +3.2 | −1.3 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH volley to their forehand · rally | −10.0±5.1 | −1.4 | −8.7 |
| BH volley to their forehand · rally | −4.2±5.5 | −0.6 | −3.7 |
| BH volley to their backhand · rally | −4.1±5.3 | +0.6 | −4.7 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −4.1±2.7 | −2.5 | −1.6 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | −3.4±2.6 | −2.3 | −1.1 |
Botic Van De Zandschulp
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return +1 | +4.2±2.0 | +2.0 | +2.2 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.2±2.1 | −1.5 | +4.7 |
| BH slice to their forehand · rally | +3.0±2.9 | +1.1 | +2.0 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +3.0±1.7 | +1.4 | +1.6 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +2.7±1.2 | +1.1 | +1.5 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +2.5±2.9 | ±0.0 | +2.4 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH volley to their backhand · rally | −5.6±5.4 | −2.7 | −2.9 |
| BH volley to their forehand · rally | −3.1±5.6 | −5.3 | +2.2 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −2.7±2.8 | −2.9 | +0.2 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −2.6±1.7 | −2.9 | +0.3 |
| BH to their forehand · return | −2.3±3.1 | −2.9 | +0.6 |
Against Botic Van De Zandschulp-like opponents
| Brandon Nakashima v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 65.5% | 32.8% |
| Players most similar to Botic Van De Zandschulp | 3 | 69.0% | 32.3% |
| Botic Van De Zandschulp (charted head-to-head) | 1 | 69.8% | 29.8% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jesper De Jong, Zhizhen Zhang, Aleksandar Kovacevic, Nuno Borges, Zizou Bergs, Miomir Kecmanovic, Mackenzie Mcdonald, Jordan Thompson, Emil Ruusuvuori, Andreas Seppi. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.