Game plan
Coco Vandeweghe v Camila Giorgi
Every number combines what Coco Vandeweghe does well with what Camila Giorgi 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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Coco Vandeweghe's record against Camila Giorgi's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +5.9 on serve, −6.1 on return vs expectation (299 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 | Coco | Camila |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.06 ±0.13 better than 44% | −0.25 ±0.09 better than 11% |
| Shot selection | +0.37 ±0.13 better than 86% | +0.61 ±0.13 better than 97% |
| Execution | −1.34 ±0.60 better than 13% | −1.67 ±0.48 better than 7% |
| Points left on the table | 2.73 ±0.22 lower than 28% | 2.65 ±0.12 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.
Coco Vandeweghe serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Coco wins | v Camila | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 72% | 69% | 74.3%±6.3 | 57% ▲ |
| Body | 12% | 68% | 61% | 70.4%±10.3 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 46% | 77% | 71% | 79.8%±6.4 | 43% ▼ |
Optimal v Camila Giorgi: +0.7±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Coco wins | v Camila | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 75% | 69% | 77.2%±7.3 | 39% |
| Body | 15% | 53% | 55% | 52.0%±11.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 45% | 70% | 65% | 69.7%±7.5 | 61% ▲ |
Optimal v Camila Giorgi: +1.1±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Camila Giorgi serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Camila wins | v Coco | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 28% | 69% | 70% | 72.4%±7.4 | 28% |
| Body | 29% | 60% | 59% | 62.4%±8.9 | 14% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 72% | 72% | 75.9%±6.3 | 58% ▲ |
Optimal v Coco Vandeweghe: +0.7±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Camila wins | v Coco | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 32% | 66% | 70% | 71.0%±7.5 | 32% |
| Body | 35% | 60% | 63% | 66.9%±8.9 | 20% ▼ |
| T | 33% | 70% | 70% | 75.2%±6.7 | 48% ▲ |
Optimal v Coco Vandeweghe: +1.2±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.3 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.
Coco Vandeweghe returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camila | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 55% | +4.2 | −3.6 | +0.1 | +0.7±2.6 |
| FH down the line | 23% | +1.5 | −5.6 | −3.1 | −7.2±4.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 22% | +5.3 | +0.1 | −1.7 | +3.7±4.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (216 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camila | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 50% | +6.0 | −2.4 | −1.7 | +2.0±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 24% | +7.7 | −2.5 | +0.2 | +5.5±3.4 |
| BH down the line | 14% | +2.2 | −1.1 | −2.9 | −1.9±4.4 |
| BH slice through the middle | 7% | −6.2 | −1.9 | −1.8 | −9.9±2.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 3% | −4.2 | +0.3 | −1.7 | −5.5±2.5 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.6±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camila | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 40% | −3.2 | −0.3 | −0.4 | −3.9±2.6 |
| FH down the line | 33% | −0.6 | −3.0 | −4.1 | −7.6±4.8 |
| FH crosscourt | 28% | +0.5 | −0.6 | +2.0 | +1.9±3.9 |
Lean FH through the middle: −0.4±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (40 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camila | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 47% | −2.6 | −5.1 | −0.6 | −8.4±2.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 28% | +1.5 | −3.7 | −3.9 | −6.1±3.4 |
| BH down the line | 20% | −0.5 | −2.4 | −3.9 | −6.8±5.2 |
| FH through the middle | 5% | −2.7 | −2.0 | −0.4 | −5.1±2.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.2±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (167 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Camila Giorgi returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Coco | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 52% | +4.2 | −4.1 | −3.7 | −3.7±2.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 23% | +5.3 | +0.7 | −2.6 | +3.4±4.1 |
| FH down the line | 17% | +1.5 | −2.3 | −0.7 | −1.4±4.6 |
| FH slice through the middle | 5% | −6.7 | −6.0 | −1.4 | −14.1±2.2 |
| FH slice down the line | 2% | −10.5 | −1.3 | −0.6 | −12.3±2.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +5.8±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (595 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Coco | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 52% | +6.0 | −1.7 | −2.2 | +2.1±2.7 |
| BH crosscourt | 26% | +7.7 | +0.1 | −2.7 | +5.1±3.6 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +2.2 | −1.3 | −3.0 | −2.1±4.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | −6.2 | +1.5 | −1.2 | −6.0±2.3 |
| BH slice down the line | 4% | −12.5 | −3.1 | −0.3 | −15.9±2.7 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.1±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (382 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Coco | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 59% | −3.2 | −2.9 | −1.6 | −7.7±3.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 29% | +0.5 | −1.3 | −2.7 | −3.4±4.4 |
| FH down the line | 11% | −0.6 | +0.5 | −1.1 | −1.2±4.9 |
Lean FH down the line: +4.5±4.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (150 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Coco | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 48% | −2.6 | −2.2 | −2.0 | −6.8±2.6 |
| BH crosscourt | 36% | +1.5 | +4.5 | −1.7 | +4.3±3.5 |
| BH down the line | 16% | −0.5 | −1.9 | −2.8 | −5.3±5.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +6.8±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (203 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.
Coco Vandeweghe
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | +6.1±6.1 | +6.5 | −0.4 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +5.8±4.9 | +2.3 | +3.5 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −1.5±4.9 | −1.0 | −0.5 |
| FH to the middle · return +1 | −1.6±3.5 | −0.9 | −0.7 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | −2.9±4.9 | −1.9 | −1.0 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | −2.9±3.3 | −1.7 | −1.2 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return | −12.3±6.0 | −6.5 | −5.8 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | −9.6±3.3 | −7.8 | −1.8 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −9.6±3.9 | −7.3 | −2.3 |
| BH to their forehand · return | −9.1±5.8 | −4.1 | −5.1 |
| BH to the middle · return | −8.9±2.5 | −6.8 | −2.2 |
Camila Giorgi
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +3.7±4.9 | −0.7 | +4.4 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.7±5.3 | +2.3 | +0.5 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +1.9±6.0 | +1.2 | +0.7 |
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | +1.3±6.4 | +2.1 | −0.8 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −1.1±4.5 | −1.1 | ±0.0 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −1.5±5.1 | −0.8 | −0.7 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return | −9.7±3.1 | −5.1 | −4.6 |
| BH to the middle · return | −7.1±2.8 | −2.6 | −4.5 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | −7.0±3.3 | −5.2 | −1.8 |
| FH to their forehand · return | −5.3±5.5 | −1.7 | −3.6 |
| BH to the middle · serve +1 | −5.1±3.2 | −2.4 | −2.7 |
Against Camila Giorgi-like opponents
| Coco Vandeweghe v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 64.1% | 37.6% |
| Players most similar to Camila Giorgi | 2 | 66.9% | 34.9% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Robin Montgomery, Veronika Kudermetova, Arianne Hartono, Caroline Garcia, Rebecca Marino, Anett Kontaveit, Danka Kovinic, Garbine Muguruza, Eugenie Bouchard. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.