Game plan
Clara Burel v Nao Hibino
Every number combines what Clara Burel does well with what Nao Hibino 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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Clara Burel's record against Nao Hibino's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +9.6 on serve, +15.4 on return vs expectation (104 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 | Clara | Nao |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.27 ±0.09 better than 9% | −0.14 ±0.10 better than 27% |
| Shot selection | −0.09 ±0.22 better than 35% | −0.13 ±0.14 better than 34% |
| Execution | +0.01 ±0.51 better than 60% | −0.86 ±0.99 better than 22% |
| Points left on the table | 2.89 ±0.26 lower than 18% | 2.71 ±0.21 lower than 32% |
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.
Clara Burel serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Clara wins | v Nao | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 53% | 56% | 70% | 60.2%±10.9 | 53% |
| Body | 27% | 50% | 55% | 47.4%±12.3 | 12% ▼ |
| T | 20% | 69% | 68% | 69.9%±11.7 | 35% ▲ |
Optimal v Nao Hibino: +0.7±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +11.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Clara wins | v Nao | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 66% | 65% | 64.9%±10.5 | 41% |
| Body | 21% | 54% | 62% | 59.6%±12.8 | 5% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 61% | 68% | 65.4%±11.5 | 54% ▲ |
Optimal v Nao Hibino: +0.9±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Nao Hibino serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Nao wins | v Clara | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 37% | 63% | 63% | 59.7%±10.6 | 37% |
| Body | 33% | 60% | 53% | 55.1%±11.2 | 18% ▼ |
| T | 30% | 55% | 61% | 47.2%±12.0 | 45% ▲ |
Optimal v Clara Burel: +0.3±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +5.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Nao wins | v Clara | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 46% | 66% | 56% | 56.3%±10.8 | 46% |
| Body | 17% | 55% | 48% | 47.7%±13.9 | 2% ▼ |
| T | 37% | 60% | 59% | 55.2%±11.1 | 52% ▲ |
Optimal v Clara Burel: +0.6±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.9 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.
Clara Burel returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nao | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 51% | +4.2 | +4.1 | −1.3 | +7.0±3.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 23% | +5.3 | +0.2 | +1.8 | +7.3±4.3 |
| FH down the line | 18% | +1.5 | −0.2 | +2.8 | +4.2±4.6 |
| FH slice through the middle | 8% | −6.7 | −0.9 | +0.5 | −7.1±2.2 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +1.9±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nao | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 54% | +6.0 | +0.9 | +0.4 | +7.3±2.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +7.7 | +1.8 | −1.9 | +7.6±3.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 11% | −6.2 | −0.3 | −0.6 | −7.2±2.0 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +2.2 | +1.1 | −0.3 | +3.0±4.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.2±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (131 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nao | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 49% | −3.2 | +1.3 | −0.9 | −2.8±3.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 32% | +0.5 | −1.7 | −0.5 | −1.6±4.1 |
| FH down the line | 19% | −0.6 | +2.9 | −0.9 | +1.4±4.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: ±0.0±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (47 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nao | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 59% | −2.6 | −0.2 | +2.8 | +0.1±2.7 |
| BH crosscourt | 31% | +1.5 | −1.3 | −0.5 | −0.3±3.3 |
| BH down the line | 10% | −0.5 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | −0.9±4.1 |
Lean BH through the middle: +0.2±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (49 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Nao Hibino returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Clara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 40% | +4.2 | +0.6 | +2.5 | +7.3±3.1 |
| FH down the line | 22% | +1.5 | +1.5 | +2.3 | +5.3±4.5 |
| FH crosscourt | 17% | +5.3 | −1.9 | +1.9 | +5.3±4.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 15% | −6.7 | −2.5 | ±0.0 | −9.2±1.6 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 6% | −6.6 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | −6.6±1.3 |
Lean FH through the middle: +4.1±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (108 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Clara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 47% | +6.0 | −0.4 | +0.4 | +6.0±2.9 |
| BH crosscourt | 30% | +7.7 | −1.5 | +0.5 | +6.7±3.7 |
| BH down the line | 13% | +2.2 | −1.8 | +0.9 | +1.3±4.2 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 5% | −4.2 | +0.3 | ±0.0 | −3.9±1.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | −6.2 | +1.3 | ±0.0 | −4.9±1.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.2±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (186 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Clara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 52% | −3.2 | −0.8 | +2.2 | −1.7±3.0 |
| FH down the line | 34% | −0.6 | −4.0 | +3.5 | −1.0±4.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 14% | +0.5 | +0.6 | +3.0 | +4.1±3.7 |
Lean FH down the line: −0.3±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (44 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Clara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 43% | +1.5 | −2.8 | +0.7 | −0.7±3.5 |
| BH through the middle | 36% | −2.6 | −1.6 | −2.0 | −6.2±2.6 |
| BH down the line | 21% | −0.5 | −1.5 | −1.5 | −3.5±4.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.6±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (47 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 clay. Each player's clay record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.
Clara Burel
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | +6.6±6.3 | +7.8 | −1.2 |
| BH to the middle · return | +6.6±3.6 | +4.1 | +2.4 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +6.2±4.5 | +2.8 | +3.4 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +3.4±3.7 | +1.1 | +2.3 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +2.2±4.9 | +1.2 | +1.0 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +2.2±3.2 | +1.4 | +0.8 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | −5.2±4.7 | −3.9 | −1.3 |
| BH to their backhand · return | ±0.0±5.1 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +0.2±5.8 | −0.6 | +0.8 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.5±3.5 | −0.3 | +0.7 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | +0.8±3.9 | +0.7 | +0.1 |
Nao Hibino
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return | +3.6±4.0 | +0.4 | +3.2 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +3.6±6.2 | +2.0 | +1.5 |
| BH to the middle · return | +3.4±3.7 | +2.1 | +1.3 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.5±5.8 | +2.1 | +0.4 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | +1.2±3.7 | +0.6 | +0.6 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | +1.0±3.9 | +0.7 | +0.3 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | −5.6±5.3 | −3.5 | −2.0 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | −4.4±6.1 | −1.9 | −2.5 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −1.3±5.1 | −3.1 | +1.8 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −1.1±4.8 | −0.8 | −0.3 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −0.5±4.5 | +1.2 | −1.7 |
Against Nao Hibino-like opponents
| Clara Burel v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 52.2% | 47.7% |
| Players most similar to Nao Hibino | 1 | 63.0% | 60.3% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Iva Jovic, Diana Shnaider, Xin Yu Wang, Bianca Andreescu, Marta Kostyuk, Jasmine Paolini, Emma Navarro, Jaqueline Cristian, Emma Raducanu, Irina Camelia Begu. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.