Game plan

Daria Saville v Tamara Zidansek

Every number combines what Daria Saville does well with what Tamara Zidansek allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Daria Saville wins, best of 3 28%90%: 9%–58% · best of 5: 23%

Serve points won 53.7% / 58.1% Daria / Tamara · tour 56.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 28%serve 53.7% / 58.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Daria Saville's record against Tamara Zidansek'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	Daria	Tamara
Direction choice	+0.06 ±0.20 better than 67%	−0.10 ±0.09 better than 36%
Shot selection	−0.41 ±0.34 better than 16%	+0.29 ±0.17 better than 78%
Execution	+0.28 ±0.46 better than 71%	−0.43 ±0.41 better than 36%
Points left on the table	2.68 ±0.22 lower than 36%	2.62 ±0.11 lower than 49%

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: Daria Saville +0.37, Tamara Zidansek +0.31. 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.

Daria Saville serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Daria wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	59%	68%	61.9%±8.3	43%
Body	21%	55%	52%	49.7%±10.2	5% ▼
T	37%	64%	64%	60.5%±8.5	52% ▲

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: +0.6±1.1 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.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Daria wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	56%	62%	63%	59.8%±7.7	48% ▼
Body	16%	55%	62%	60.7%±10.9	18% ▲
T	28%	61%	62%	58.8%±9.8	34% ▲

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: ±0.0±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +1.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Tamara Zidansek serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Daria	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	64%	59%	56.5%±8.4	40%
Body	34%	55%	56%	54.1%±10.2	19% ▼
T	26%	68%	68%	68.1%±8.2	41% ▲

Optimal v Daria Saville: +1.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +9.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Daria	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	63%	61%	58.7%±8.2	41%
Body	27%	52%	60%	56.2%±12.0	12% ▼
T	32%	64%	68%	67.7%±8.5	47% ▲

Optimal v Daria Saville: +0.8±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.8 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.

Daria Saville returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH through the middle	50%	+4.2	+1.4	+1.1	+6.6±2.8
FH crosscourt	25%	+5.3	−0.2	−2.9	+2.3±4.2
FH down the line	17%	+1.5	−1.5	+0.6	+0.6±4.6
FH slice through the middle	5%	−6.7	+0.6	+1.2	−5.0±1.9
BH through the middle	3%	+5.2	+0.7	+2.0	+8.0±1.9

Lean FH through the middle: +2.6±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (208 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	36%	+6.0	+1.9	+2.0	+9.9±2.5
BH slice through the middle	21%	−6.2	−0.4	+1.4	−5.2±2.5
BH crosscourt	17%	+7.7	−1.9	+1.8	+7.6±3.4
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+1.5	−3.0	+0.7±4.6
BH slice crosscourt	12%	−4.2	−1.7	−0.7	−6.6±2.7

Lean BH through the middle: +7.2±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (273 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH down the line	38%	−0.6	+2.3	−1.1	+0.6±5.0
FH through the middle	38%	−3.2	−1.6	+2.5	−2.2±2.9
FH crosscourt	25%	+0.5	−1.1	−3.6	−4.2±4.1

Lean FH down the line: +2.2±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (56 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	26%	−2.6	+0.1	+1.4	−1.1±2.7
FH inside-out	23%	+1.4	+0.7	−1.1	+0.9±4.3
BH crosscourt	20%	+1.5	+0.7	+1.0	+3.2±3.6
FH through the middle	18%	−2.7	−0.7	+2.5	−0.9±2.6
BH down the line	9%	−0.5	+0.6	+4.3	+4.4±4.9

Lean BH down the line: +3.7±4.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (180 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Tamara Zidansek returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daria	Value
FH through the middle	49%	+4.2	−0.6	+0.1	+3.6±3.0
FH down the line	21%	+1.5	−0.1	+0.8	+2.3±4.7
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.3	+0.5	+3.5	+9.3±4.3
FH slice through the middle	7%	−6.7	−1.9	+1.2	−7.5±2.3
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	+0.1	+0.4	−6.1±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.6±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (244 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daria	Value
BH through the middle	52%	+6.0	+0.4	+0.2	+6.6±2.4
BH crosscourt	18%	+7.7	−0.5	+0.9	+8.2±3.5
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−0.9	+0.4	+1.6±4.7
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	−0.4	−2.0	−8.6±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	4%	−4.2	−0.4	+1.8	−2.8±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.0±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (334 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daria	Value
FH through the middle	43%	−3.2	+2.4	+0.6	−0.3±3.1
FH crosscourt	29%	+0.5	+0.9	+1.3	+2.7±4.4
FH down the line	19%	−0.6	+1.0	−1.9	−1.5±4.9
FH slice through the middle	10%	−15.2	+0.3	±0.0	−14.9±1.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.8±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (91 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Daria	Value
BH through the middle	38%	−2.6	±0.0	−0.5	−3.1±2.8
BH crosscourt	23%	+1.5	−1.0	+0.5	+1.0±3.6
FH inside-out	12%	+1.4	+1.3	−1.9	+0.8±4.0
FH through the middle	11%	−2.7	+0.8	+0.6	−1.3±2.4
BH down the line	8%	−0.5	−0.1	+0.9	+0.2±4.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (130 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 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.

Daria Saville

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	+7.3±3.1	+4.0	+3.3
BH to the middle · rally	+5.2±2.9	+3.3	+1.9
BH to the middle · return +1	+4.4±3.6	+1.7	+2.7
BH to their backhand · return	+4.0±4.8	+2.2	+1.8
FH to the middle · return	+3.3±3.4	+0.4	+2.9
FH to their forehand · return +1	+3.0±5.4	+5.4	−2.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	−10.2±6.0	−1.3	−8.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−1.4±4.0	+1.1	−2.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−1.3±4.9	+0.6	−1.9
FH to their backhand · return	−1.1±5.8	−0.4	−0.7
BH to their backhand · rally	−0.9±4.2	+0.9	−1.8

Tamara Zidansek

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	+5.3±5.9	+0.4	+4.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.3±4.7	+1.0	+3.3
BH to the middle · serve +1	+3.3±3.9	+4.5	−1.2
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.8±3.4	+0.8	+1.9
BH to the middle · return +1	+2.6±3.7	+1.5	+1.1
BH to their backhand · rally	+2.3±3.9	+0.3	+2.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	−4.7±3.7	−3.9	−0.8
FH to their backhand · return	−4.2±6.1	−2.7	−1.5
BH to their forehand · return	−3.5±6.7	−1.8	−1.6
BH to their forehand · rally	−0.8±6.0	+2.0	−2.8
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.6±4.8	+0.4	−1.0

Against Tamara Zidansek-like opponents

Daria Saville v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	53.7%	43.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Bianca Andreescu, Suzan Lamens, Jasmine Paolini, Daria Kasatkina, Nadia Podoroska, Yafan Wang, Nao Hibino, Mayar Sherif, Rebecca Peterson. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.