Game plan
Daniil Medvedev v Emil Ruusuvuori
Every number combines what Daniil Medvedev does well with what Emil Ruusuvuori 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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Daniil Medvedev's record against Emil Ruusuvuori's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +3.7 on serve, +1.6 on return vs expectation (3953 points); head-to-head: −2.9 on serve, +5.2 on return vs expectation (455 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 | Daniil | Emil |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.01 ±0.04 better than 58% | −0.16 ±0.06 better than 19% |
| Shot selection | −0.06 ±0.04 better than 46% | +0.32 ±0.10 better than 81% |
| Execution | +1.24 ±0.16 better than 98% | −0.31 ±0.37 better than 52% |
| Points left on the table | 2.31 ±0.06 lower than 84% | 2.31 ±0.11 lower than 83% |
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: Daniil Medvedev +0.81, Emil Ruusuvuori +0.37. 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.
Daniil Medvedev serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniil wins | v Emil | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 74% | 71% | 72.3%±3.4 | 41% ▼ |
| Body | 4% | 63% | 61% | 60.7%±7.9 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 46% | 78% | 73% | 76.3%±3.4 | 59% ▲ |
Optimal v Emil Ruusuvuori: +0.3±0.4 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Daniil wins | v Emil | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 78% | 72% | 77.5%±3.2 | 40% ▼ |
| Body | 5% | 60% | 62% | 59.0%±9.2 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 74% | 71% | 72.9%±3.6 | 60% ▲ |
Optimal v Emil Ruusuvuori: +0.5±0.5 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.
Emil Ruusuvuori serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Emil wins | v Daniil | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 35% | 68% | 69% | 63.3%±4.3 | 34% |
| Body | 23% | 62% | 58% | 57.4%±5.7 | 10% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 72% | 71% | 67.5%±4.1 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Daniil Medvedev: +0.5±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Emil wins | v Daniil | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 70% | 69% | 66.6%±4.3 | 39% |
| Body | 16% | 66% | 58% | 61.6%±6.6 | 3% ▼ |
| T | 45% | 69% | 70% | 66.4%±3.9 | 58% ▲ |
Optimal v Daniil Medvedev: +0.1±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +0.9 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.
Daniil Medvedev returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 47% | +4.3 | +1.4 | +0.1 | +5.7±1.4 |
| FH crosscourt | 22% | +5.5 | +3.4 | −2.1 | +6.8±3.0 |
| FH down the line | 15% | +1.7 | −0.5 | −2.0 | −0.8±3.0 |
| FH slice through the middle | 10% | −4.2 | −1.1 | +0.3 | −5.0±1.9 |
| FH slice down the line | 4% | −4.3 | −0.1 | +0.7 | −3.7±2.6 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (5958 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 48% | +6.4 | +3.1 | +1.3 | +10.7±1.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +8.8 | +2.4 | −0.5 | +10.7±2.2 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +4.2 | +1.6 | −1.9 | +3.9±3.5 |
| BH slice through the middle | 9% | −4.2 | −1.9 | +0.5 | −5.5±2.0 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 4% | +0.5 | −4.5 | +1.2 | −2.7±2.7 |
Lean BH through the middle: +3.5±1.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (4981 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 50% | −3.5 | +1.6 | −1.3 | −3.1±2.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 27% | −0.2 | −1.0 | −2.8 | −4.1±3.6 |
| FH down the line | 17% | −1.8 | +1.7 | −1.3 | −1.4±4.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −12.7 | −0.8 | ±0.0 | −13.5±1.7 |
| BH through the middle | 2% | +0.1 | +1.2 | +0.6 | +1.9±1.7 |
Lean BH through the middle: +5.2±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (1558 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 51% | −2.9 | +2.9 | +0.6 | +0.6±1.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 38% | +1.0 | +1.9 | +2.3 | +5.2±2.0 |
| BH down the line | 9% | −0.2 | +1.2 | −3.8 | −2.7±4.4 |
| FH through the middle | 1% | −2.9 | −1.0 | −1.3 | −5.2±2.2 |
| FH inside-in | 1% | +0.6 | −2.8 | −2.8 | −5.1±4.2 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.3±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (2951 returns charted)
Emil Ruusuvuori returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 55% | +4.3 | +1.1 | +1.6 | +6.9±1.5 |
| FH down the line | 23% | +1.7 | −1.6 | −0.7 | −0.7±3.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 18% | +5.5 | −0.8 | ±0.0 | +4.7±3.2 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −4.2 | −1.5 | +1.1 | −4.6±1.6 |
| FH slice down the line | 1% | −4.3 | −2.8 | −0.7 | −7.8±2.3 |
Lean FH through the middle: +2.7±1.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (703 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 53% | +6.4 | −0.1 | +2.0 | +8.3±1.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 31% | +8.8 | −2.8 | +1.0 | +7.0±2.3 |
| BH down the line | 13% | +4.2 | −4.6 | +1.1 | +0.7±3.7 |
| BH slice through the middle | 2% | −4.2 | −0.8 | −0.6 | −5.6±1.6 |
| BH slice down the line | 1% | −8.4 | −1.6 | −3.9 | −13.8±2.6 |
Lean BH through the middle: +1.9±1.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (708 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 57% | −3.5 | +2.7 | +1.1 | +0.3±2.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 25% | −0.2 | +0.9 | −1.3 | −0.6±3.5 |
| FH down the line | 18% | −1.8 | −2.6 | −0.3 | −4.7±3.8 |
Lean FH through the middle: +1.1±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (207 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Daniil | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 49% | −2.9 | −0.2 | +0.4 | −2.7±1.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 41% | +1.0 | −1.4 | +0.6 | +0.2±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 9% | −0.2 | ±0.0 | +1.6 | +1.4±4.2 |
| FH through the middle | 1% | −2.9 | +0.4 | +1.1 | −1.4±1.2 |
Lean BH down the line: +2.5±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (481 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.
Daniil Medvedev
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return +1 | +4.2±1.7 | +2.4 | +1.8 |
| BH to the middle · return | +4.0±1.1 | +2.9 | +1.1 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +3.1±1.2 | +2.2 | +0.9 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +2.8±1.6 | +1.6 | +1.2 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +2.4±1.5 | +2.1 | +0.3 |
| FH to the middle · return | +2.4±1.2 | +2.0 | +0.4 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice to their backhand · return | −3.3±2.6 | −3.4 | +0.1 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −3.3±2.7 | −0.2 | −3.1 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −2.6±1.3 | −0.7 | −2.0 |
| BH slice to the middle · rally | −2.4±1.6 | −1.9 | −0.5 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −1.8±2.5 | −0.3 | −1.6 |
Emil Ruusuvuori
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return | +2.8±1.2 | +1.7 | +1.1 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.5±1.7 | +0.7 | +1.8 |
| FH slice to the middle · rally | +2.3±2.3 | +1.6 | +0.6 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +2.0±1.2 | +0.4 | +1.6 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +2.0±1.5 | +1.0 | +1.0 |
| BH to the middle · return | +1.9±1.1 | +0.8 | +1.2 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.3±3.6 | −1.8 | −2.6 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −2.8±2.4 | −2.1 | −0.6 |
| BH volley to their forehand · rally | −2.4±5.0 | −2.7 | +0.3 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −2.3±1.6 | −2.3 | ±0.0 |
| FH volley to their forehand · rally | −1.7±4.7 | −4.1 | +2.3 |
Against Emil Ruusuvuori-like opponents
| Daniil Medvedev v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 66.1% | 39.4% |
| Players most similar to Emil Ruusuvuori | 25 | 68.2% | 39.4% |
| Emil Ruusuvuori (charted head-to-head) | 2 | 60.3% | 45.2% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alexander Zverev, Botic Van De Zandschulp, Nuno Borges, Miomir Kecmanovic, Jordan Thompson, Borna Coric, Ilya Ivashka, Viktor Troicki, Hyeon Chung, Nikolay Davydenko. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.