Game plan

Daniil Medvedev v Stefan Edberg

Every number combines what Daniil Medvedev does well with what Stefan Edberg allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Daniil Medvedev wins, best of 3 66%90%: 49%–80% · best of 5: 69%

Serve points won 62.5% / 59.4% Daniil / Stefan · tour 61.3%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 66%serve 62.5% / 59.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Stefan Edberg's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads. 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	Stefan
Direction choice	+0.01 ±0.04 better than 58%	+0.16 ±0.05 better than 89%
Shot selection	−0.06 ±0.04 better than 46%	+0.79 ±0.06 better than 98%
Execution	+1.24 ±0.16 better than 98%	−0.62 ±0.21 better than 40%
Points left on the table	2.31 ±0.06 lower than 84%	3.93 ±0.11 lower than 5%

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.

Daniil Medvedev serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Daniil wins	v Stefan	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	74%	69%	70.3%±1.9	41% ▼
Body	4%	63%	62%	61.7%±5.1	0% ▼
T	46%	78%	74%	77.3%±1.8	59% ▲

Optimal v Stefan Edberg: +0.4±0.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Daniil wins	v Stefan	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	78%	69%	74.5%±1.9	49%
Body	5%	60%	63%	59.7%±5.4	0% ▼
T	47%	74%	70%	72.3%±2.1	51% ▲

Optimal v Stefan Edberg: +0.3±0.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +1.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Stefan Edberg serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Stefan wins	v Daniil	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	75%	69%	71.3%±2.0	55% ▲
Body	20%	69%	58%	63.8%±3.7	20%
T	38%	72%	71%	67.4%±2.2	25% ▼

Optimal v Daniil Medvedev: +0.3±0.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Stefan wins	v Daniil	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	55%	72%	69%	68.9%±2.0	59% ▲
Body	15%	65%	58%	60.1%±4.2	2% ▼
T	30%	70%	70%	68.3%±2.5	39% ▲

Optimal v Daniil Medvedev: +0.1±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.5 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 Stefan	Value
FH through the middle	47%	+4.3	+1.4	−2.2	+3.4±0.9
FH crosscourt	22%	+5.5	+3.4	+0.5	+9.4±1.9
FH down the line	15%	+1.7	−0.5	+3.0	+4.2±2.0
FH slice through the middle	10%	−4.2	−1.1	−0.2	−5.5±1.9
FH slice down the line	4%	−4.3	−0.1	−1.9	−6.3±2.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.1±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (5958 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Stefan	Value
BH through the middle	48%	+6.4	+3.1	−4.0	+5.5±0.8
BH crosscourt	25%	+8.8	+2.4	+1.4	+12.7±1.3
BH down the line	10%	+4.2	+1.6	−1.5	+4.3±2.3
BH slice through the middle	9%	−4.2	−1.9	−1.4	−7.5±1.4
BH slice crosscourt	4%	+0.5	−4.5	+0.9	−3.0±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.5±1.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (4981 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Stefan	Value
FH through the middle	50%	−3.5	+1.6	−2.4	−4.3±1.4
FH crosscourt	27%	−0.2	−1.0	+4.0	+2.7±2.7
FH down the line	17%	−1.8	+1.7	+4.0	+3.9±3.1
FH slice through the middle	2%	−12.7	−0.8	+0.7	−12.8±2.2
BH through the middle	2%	+0.1	+1.2	−3.0	−1.7±1.5

Lean FH down the line: +5.0±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (1558 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Stefan	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.9	+2.9	−3.0	−2.9±0.9
BH crosscourt	38%	+1.0	+1.9	+3.7	+6.7±1.3
BH down the line	9%	−0.2	+1.2	−1.3	−0.3±3.2
FH through the middle	1%	−2.9	−1.0	−2.4	−6.3±1.9
FH inside-in	1%	+0.6	−2.8	+4.0	+1.7±3.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.7±1.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (2951 returns charted)

Stefan Edberg returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daniil	Value
FH through the middle	45%	+4.3	+0.4	+1.6	+6.2±1.0
FH down the line	31%	+1.7	+5.4	−0.7	+6.4±2.0
FH crosscourt	20%	+5.5	+2.6	±0.0	+8.2±2.1
BH slice through the middle	1%	−1.6	+0.8	−0.6	−1.5±1.7
FH slice through the middle	1%	−4.2	−0.5	+1.1	−3.7±1.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.7±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (3660 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daniil	Value
BH slice through the middle	32%	−4.2	+1.2	−0.6	−3.6±1.0
BH slice crosscourt	25%	+0.5	+5.2	−2.6	+3.1±1.5
BH through the middle	14%	+6.4	−1.4	+2.0	+7.0±1.3
BH slice down the line	11%	−8.4	+5.0	−3.9	−7.3±2.5
BH crosscourt	9%	+8.8	+1.1	+1.0	+10.9±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +9.5±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (4178 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daniil	Value
FH down the line	34%	−1.8	+5.6	−0.3	+3.5±2.8
FH through the middle	32%	−3.5	−0.4	+1.1	−2.8±1.5
FH crosscourt	28%	−0.2	+2.2	−1.3	+0.7±2.6
BH slice through the middle	2%	−6.9	+1.3	−0.4	−6.1±2.1
BH slice inside-in	2%	−2.1	+0.2	−2.5	−4.3±2.6

Lean FH down the line: +3.3±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (1191 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daniil	Value
BH slice crosscourt	29%	−4.0	+2.5	−2.5	−4.0±1.9
BH through the middle	17%	−2.9	−0.4	+0.4	−2.8±1.2
BH crosscourt	13%	+1.0	−0.8	+0.6	+0.8±1.7
BH slice through the middle	12%	−11.3	+2.8	−0.4	−8.9±2.0
BH slice down the line	12%	−9.3	+4.3	−2.1	−7.1±3.6
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	+2.7	+1.6	+4.1±3.2

Lean BH down the line: +7.1±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (2884 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.

Daniil Medvedev

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH volley to their backhand · rally	+13.9±7.0	+3.8	+10.2
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+5.7±6.9	+0.4	+5.3
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1	+5.6±6.1	+6.3	−0.8
FH lob to the middle · rally	+4.2±5.3	+0.4	+3.7
BH to their backhand · return	+4.1±2.0	+2.1	+2.0
FH lob to their backhand · rally	+3.1±6.3	−0.8	+3.9

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · return +1	−6.3±3.3	−3.4	−2.9
BH lob to their backhand · rally	−6.2±5.9	−1.6	−4.6
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1	−6.2±7.0	−5.2	−1.0
Smash to their forehand · rally	−5.7±5.6	−5.5	−0.2
BH lob to the middle · return +1	−5.4±3.2	−1.1	−4.3

Stefan Edberg

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+10.4±6.3	+8.5	+2.0
BH volley to their backhand · rally	+9.5±6.5	+8.0	+1.6
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1	+8.5±5.8	+3.8	+4.7
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1	+5.9±6.1	+4.3	+1.6
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1	+5.5±5.1	+2.0	+3.5
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+5.4±1.9	+3.2	+2.2

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH volley to the middle · rally	−6.1±7.2	−5.8	−0.3
Smash to their forehand · rally	−3.7±5.4	−2.5	−1.2
FH volley to their backhand · rally	−3.7±6.3	+1.3	−5.0
Smash to the middle · rally	−3.5±6.6	−3.2	−0.3
Smash to their backhand · rally	−2.8±5.6	−3.9	+1.1

Against Stefan Edberg-like opponents

Daniil Medvedev v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	66.1%	39.4%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Tim Henman, Max Mirnyi, Greg Rusedski, Mark Philippoussis, Patrick Rafter, Boris Becker, Michael Stich, David Wheaton, John Mcenroe, Pat Cash. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.