Game plan
Brandon Nakashima v Paolo Lorenzi
Every number combines what Brandon Nakashima does well with what Paolo Lorenzi 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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Brandon Nakashima's record against Paolo Lorenzi's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −3.7 on serve, +5.0 on return vs expectation (234 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 | Paolo |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.01 ±0.07 better than 54% | −0.14 ±0.21 better than 20% |
| Shot selection | −0.11 ±0.14 better than 38% | −0.03 ±0.20 better than 49% |
| Execution | +0.79 ±0.43 better than 91% | +0.01 ±0.79 better than 68% |
| Points left on the table | 2.50 ±0.10 lower than 60% | 2.74 ±0.31 lower than 37% |
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.
Brandon Nakashima serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Brandon wins | v Paolo | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 52% | 73% | 76% | 75.6%±6.2 | 44% ▼ |
| Body | 5% | 64% | 71% | 71.9%±11.1 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 78% | 78% | 80.8%±6.3 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Paolo Lorenzi: +0.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Brandon wins | v Paolo | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 72% | 80% | 79.3%±6.5 | 50% ▼ |
| Body | 9% | 69% | 58% | 65.3%±11.9 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 37% | 72% | 76% | 75.7%±6.6 | 50% ▲ |
Optimal v Paolo Lorenzi: +0.6±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Paolo Lorenzi serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Paolo wins | v Brandon | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 38% | 71% | 74% | 72.7%±7.3 | 34% ▼ |
| Body | 9% | 58% | 66% | 61.5%±13.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 53% | 80% | 79% | 83.2%±5.2 | 66% ▲ |
Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +1.0±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +6.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Paolo wins | v Brandon | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 71% | 75% | 73.7%±6.8 | 52% ▼ |
| Body | 12% | 70% | 67% | 73.6%±10.5 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 35% | 75% | 74% | 77.4%±6.9 | 48% ▲ |
Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +0.5±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.4 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 Paolo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 48% | +4.3 | −1.1 | +0.2 | +3.3±2.6 |
| FH down the line | 19% | +1.7 | −1.5 | +2.5 | +2.6±4.2 |
| FH slice through the middle | 14% | −4.2 | +1.0 | −1.2 | −4.3±2.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 11% | +5.5 | +0.6 | +2.3 | +8.4±4.3 |
| FH slice down the line | 4% | −4.3 | +0.9 | +0.7 | −2.8±2.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +6.3±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (771 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Paolo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 38% | +6.4 | +0.2 | +1.0 | +7.6±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 29% | +8.8 | +1.2 | −0.6 | +9.4±3.3 |
| BH slice through the middle | 12% | −4.2 | +0.1 | +0.9 | −3.1±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +4.2 | −1.3 | −1.0 | +1.9±4.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 8% | +0.5 | −3.1 | +1.3 | −1.3±2.9 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (648 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Paolo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 62% | −3.5 | −1.0 | −0.5 | −4.9±2.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | −0.2 | +3.2 | −2.5 | +0.5±4.4 |
| FH down the line | 17% | −1.8 | −0.7 | −1.8 | −4.2±4.6 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Paolo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 50% | −2.9 | −0.6 | +0.1 | −3.4±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 34% | +1.0 | +1.9 | −0.4 | +2.5±3.1 |
| BH down the line | 11% | −0.2 | +0.7 | −1.4 | −1.0±5.0 |
| BH slice through the middle | 4% | −11.3 | −1.2 | ±0.0 | −12.5±1.5 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 2% | −4.0 | −0.1 | +0.3 | −3.8±1.8 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.0±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (387 returns charted)
Paolo Lorenzi returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 43% | +4.3 | +0.8 | +1.7 | +6.7±2.5 |
| FH slice through the middle | 18% | −4.2 | +1.0 | −0.4 | −3.6±2.3 |
| FH crosscourt | 15% | +5.5 | +1.0 | +3.4 | +9.9±4.0 |
| FH down the line | 13% | +1.7 | +1.9 | −1.2 | +2.4±4.1 |
| FH slice down the line | 6% | −4.3 | ±0.0 | +0.5 | −3.8±2.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +6.1±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (190 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 39% | +6.4 | +1.4 | −0.3 | +7.5±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 23% | +8.8 | +0.4 | +0.4 | +9.6±3.2 |
| BH slice through the middle | 20% | −4.2 | −0.1 | +0.4 | −3.9±2.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 10% | +0.5 | +0.4 | +2.1 | +3.1±2.8 |
| BH down the line | 4% | +4.2 | −1.2 | −0.3 | +2.7±3.6 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +5.3±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (140 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Brandon | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 36% | +1.0 | +4.8 | −0.2 | +5.7±2.9 |
| BH through the middle | 36% | −2.9 | +2.1 | +2.3 | +1.5±2.2 |
| FH through the middle | 10% | −2.9 | −0.1 | −1.0 | −4.0±1.9 |
| FH inside-out | 8% | +1.0 | +0.8 | +1.7 | +3.5±3.2 |
| BH down the line | 5% | −0.2 | ±0.0 | +1.4 | +1.2±3.8 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.1±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 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.
Brandon Nakashima
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +8.5±4.7 | +4.5 | +4.0 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +7.8±4.3 | +3.8 | +4.0 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +4.1±3.3 | +0.9 | +3.3 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +2.7±5.3 | +0.8 | +1.9 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +2.1±3.3 | −0.8 | +2.9 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | +1.7±4.5 | +1.1 | +0.6 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | −4.5±5.3 | +0.1 | −4.6 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | −2.0±4.4 | −0.2 | −1.8 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.8±3.2 | −1.7 | −0.1 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −1.3±5.5 | −0.8 | −0.5 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −0.7±4.0 | +0.4 | −1.1 |
Paolo Lorenzi
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | +5.3±3.5 | +2.2 | +3.1 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +3.7±5.3 | +4.6 | −0.9 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +3.3±4.1 | +3.4 | ±0.0 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +3.2±2.4 | +2.1 | +1.1 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.2±5.1 | −0.9 | +4.1 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.7±4.3 | +2.1 | +0.6 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | +0.2±3.6 | +0.5 | −0.3 |
| BH slice to their backhand · rally | +0.2±3.3 | −0.6 | +0.8 |
| BH to the middle · return | +1.2±3.0 | +0.6 | +0.6 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +1.3±3.9 | +1.2 | +0.1 |
| FH to the middle · return | +1.3±3.1 | +0.5 | +0.8 |
Against Paolo Lorenzi-like opponents
| Brandon Nakashima v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 65.5% | 32.8% |
| Players most similar to Paolo Lorenzi | 1 | 55.1% | 35.3% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jannik Sinner, Flavio Cobolli, Gael Monfils, Marton Fucsovics, Arthur Cazaux, Mattia Bellucci, Dominik Koepfer, Janko Tipsarevic, Marcos Baghdatis, Andrei Pavel. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.