Game plan

Christopher Oconnell v Tim Van Rijthoven

Every number combines what Christopher Oconnell does well with what Tim Van Rijthoven allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Christopher Oconnell wins, best of 3 33%90%: 12%–62% · best of 5: 30%

Serve points won 64.2% / 67.7% Christopher / Tim · tour 63.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 37%serve 64.3% / 67.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Christopher Oconnell's record against Tim Van Rijthoven's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −3.7 on serve, −17.7 on return vs expectation (126 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	Christopher	Tim
Direction choice	+0.35 ±0.06 better than 99%	−0.02 ±0.06 better than 52%
Shot selection	−0.54 ±0.24 better than 10%	−0.41 ±0.13 better than 16%
Execution	−0.86 ±0.46 better than 30%	−1.17 ±0.75 better than 20%
Points left on the table	2.34 ±0.14 lower than 80%	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 47%

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.

Christopher Oconnell serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Christopher wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	67%	78%	72.7%±7.0	52% ▲
Body	4%	63%	67%	66.7%±12.9	0% ▼
T	57%	73%	79%	77.0%±6.0	48% ▼

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.3±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Christopher wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	74%	73%	74.5%±6.6	39% ▼
Body	4%	52%	59%	47.8%±14.7	0% ▼
T	48%	69%	78%	74.6%±7.0	61% ▲

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.5±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Tim Van Rijthoven serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Christopher	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	78%	78%	82.2%±5.4	36% ▼
Body	6%	63%	62%	61.2%±13.4	0% ▼
T	51%	82%	80%	86.0%±4.6	64% ▲

Optimal v Christopher Oconnell: +1.1±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Christopher	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	81%	72%	81.0%±5.6	47% ▼
Body	6%	66%	59%	62.7%±14.0	0% ▼
T	40%	74%	74%	76.1%±7.1	53% ▲

Optimal v Christopher Oconnell: +0.4±0.8 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.

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.

Christopher Oconnell returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	37%	+4.3	+1.0	−3.0	+2.3±3.0
FH down the line	28%	+1.7	−3.0	−1.2	−2.5±4.3
FH crosscourt	25%	+5.5	−0.4	−2.0	+3.1±4.4
FH slice through the middle	7%	−4.2	−2.4	+0.1	−6.6±2.2
FH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.3	−1.2	−1.0	−6.5±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (239 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH slice through the middle	42%	−4.2	−0.4	−2.8	−7.4±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	35%	+0.5	+0.6	−1.7	−0.5±2.8
BH through the middle	10%	+6.4	−0.4	−2.5	+3.5±2.7
BH crosscourt	5%	+8.8	−1.9	−2.8	+4.1±3.4
BH slice down the line	5%	−8.4	−1.7	−1.2	−11.3±3.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.4±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (317 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	40%	−3.5	−0.1	−1.9	−5.4±2.9
FH crosscourt	39%	−0.2	+1.3	−4.6	−3.5±4.2
FH down the line	20%	−1.8	−0.2	−1.0	−3.0±4.4

Lean FH down the line: +1.2±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (84 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH slice crosscourt	49%	−4.0	−1.7	±0.0	−5.7±1.8
BH slice through the middle	21%	−11.3	−2.2	−1.8	−15.2±2.1
BH through the middle	7%	−2.9	−1.5	−0.1	−4.5±2.2
BH crosscourt	5%	+1.0	−0.6	−3.1	−2.7±2.9
FH inside-out	5%	+1.0	+0.8	−1.0	+0.8±3.2

Lean BH slice crosscourt: +1.4±1.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (189 returns charted)

Tim Van Rijthoven returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−3.6	−0.6	±0.0±2.8
FH slice through the middle	20%	−4.2	−1.7	−1.0	−6.9±2.3
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−0.8	+3.1	+7.9±4.3
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	−3.4	−1.7	−3.5±4.5
FH slice down the line	9%	−4.3	−1.7	−0.1	−6.0±2.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +9.0±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (247 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
BH slice through the middle	44%	−4.2	−1.4	−1.2	−6.8±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	17%	+0.5	+0.2	−1.5	−0.8±3.0
BH through the middle	13%	+6.4	+1.6	+0.9	+8.9±2.7
BH down the line	11%	+4.2	−1.9	−1.8	+0.4±4.6
BH slice down the line	8%	−8.4	−0.8	−2.6	−11.8±3.2

Lean BH through the middle: +11.3±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (327 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
FH through the middle	64%	−3.5	−1.6	+2.3	−2.8±2.8
FH crosscourt	24%	−0.2	+0.4	+3.4	+3.6±3.9
FH down the line	12%	−1.8	−0.8	+0.3	−2.3±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: −1.6±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (42 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.9	−0.3	+2.1	−1.0±2.4
BH crosscourt	22%	+1.0	−1.6	+0.1	−0.5±3.0
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−4.4	±0.0	−4.6±4.7
BH slice through the middle	6%	−11.3	−1.2	±0.0	−12.5±1.3
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.0	−0.7	±0.0	−4.8±1.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 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.

Christopher Oconnell

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · serve +1	+0.9±2.7	+1.5	−0.6
FH to the middle · rally	+0.4±2.2	+1.3	−0.9
BH to the middle · rally	−0.2±2.2	−1.1	+0.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−0.3±2.2	+0.6	−0.9
FH to their forehand · return +1	−1.1±4.1	+0.5	−1.6
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−1.9±3.1	−0.6	−1.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−5.5±3.3	−0.3	−5.2
FH to their forehand · return	−5.4±4.4	−1.3	−4.0
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.6±2.6	−2.3	−1.2
FH to their backhand · return +1	−3.4±4.2	−3.3	−0.1
FH to the middle · return	−3.1±2.6	+0.3	−3.4

Tim Van Rijthoven

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+3.3±2.5	+3.4	−0.2
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+1.8±3.5	+2.9	−1.1
FH to their forehand · return +1	+1.0±4.1	−0.5	+1.6
BH to the middle · return +1	+0.7±2.6	−1.3	+1.9
FH to the middle · rally	+0.5±2.2	−0.3	+0.8
FH to their forehand · return	+0.1±4.5	−4.4	+4.5

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return	−7.3±4.5	−5.9	−1.4
FH to their backhand · return	−5.0±4.0	−3.9	−1.0
BH to their backhand · return	−3.7±3.0	−3.0	−0.7
BH to the middle · rally	−3.2±2.2	−2.5	−0.7
FH to the middle · return	−3.0±2.3	−3.7	+0.7

Against Tim Van Rijthoven-like opponents

Christopher Oconnell v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	60.0%	33.9%
Players most similar to Tim Van Rijthoven	1	58.1%	13.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Ben Shelton, Matteo Berrettini, Tallon Griekspoor, Denis Shapovalov, Grigor Dimitrov, Alexei Popyrin, Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Vasek Pospisil, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Roger Federer. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.