RallyIQ

Game plan

Egor Gerasimov v Andrei Medvedev

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

Forecast

Egor Gerasimov wins, best of 3 49%90%: 20%–78% · best of 5: 48%
Serve points won 65.1% / 65.4% Egor / Andrei · tour 65.7%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 49%serve 65.1% / 65.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Egor Gerasimov's record against Andrei Medvedev'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

CareerEgorAndrei
Direction choice−0.12 ±0.11
better than 26%
−0.19 ±0.15
better than 16%
Shot selection+0.25 ±0.18
better than 75%
−0.13 ±0.26
better than 35%
Execution−0.08 ±0.57
better than 64%
−0.34 ±0.63
better than 52%
Points left on the table2.49 ±0.18
lower than 61%
3.04 ±0.22
lower than 18%

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.

Egor Gerasimov serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowEgor winsv AndreiMatchupOptimal
Wide42%77%82%85.4%±5.855% ▲
Body7%63%72%71.5%±12.97%
T51%70%68%62.0%±9.438% ▼

Optimal v Andrei Medvedev: +0.9±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +12.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowEgor winsv AndreiMatchupOptimal
Wide68%72%67%66.0%±8.864% ▼
Body9%65%64%66.1%±13.60% ▼
T23%67%72%66.7%±10.736% ▲

Optimal v Andrei Medvedev: +0.4±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +0.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Andrei Medvedev serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowAndrei winsv EgorMatchupOptimal
Wide55%67%69%62.4%±8.448% ▼
Body6%66%60%63.2%±16.10% ▼
T39%79%76%80.3%±7.652% ▲

Optimal v Egor Gerasimov: +0.6±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +10.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowAndrei winsv EgorMatchupOptimal
Wide64%69%73%69.5%±8.074% ▲
Body7%64%67%68.3%±14.50% ▼
T29%68%70%66.5%±10.326% ▼

Optimal v Egor Gerasimov: +0.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.0 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.

Egor Gerasimov returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AndreiValue
FH through the middle65%+4.3±0.0−0.9+3.4±2.8
FH crosscourt20%+5.5+0.1−0.3+5.3±4.4
FH down the line16%+1.7+1.2−0.7+2.2±4.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.7±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (200 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AndreiValue
BH through the middle52%+6.4+0.2−0.9+5.7±2.8
BH crosscourt28%+8.8−2.0−0.5+6.3±3.6
BH down the line12%+4.2−5.8−1.7−3.3±4.2
BH slice through the middle6%−4.2+0.1+1.2−3.0±2.2
BH slice crosscourt3%+0.5−1.4+0.6−0.3±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (189 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv AndreiValue
BH through the middle55%−2.9+0.2+0.8−1.8±2.6
BH crosscourt30%+1.0−0.6−1.2−0.7±3.3
BH down the line15%−0.2−0.7−1.7−2.6±4.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +0.9±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (118 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Andrei Medvedev returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv EgorValue
FH through the middle55%+4.3−3.6+1.4+2.1±3.0
FH down the line22%+1.7+1.2−1.3+1.5±4.4
FH crosscourt14%+5.5+0.1−0.8+4.7±4.0
FH slice through the middle7%−4.2−0.7−0.9−5.9±2.1
BH through the middle3%+6.6−0.5+2.2+8.3±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv EgorValue
BH through the middle40%+6.4−0.6+2.2+8.0±2.7
BH crosscourt33%+8.8+1.3+1.3+11.3±3.6
BH down the line14%+4.2−3.0+1.1+2.4±4.4
BH slice through the middle7%−4.2+1.0−1.4−4.6±2.3
BH slice crosscourt3%+0.5−0.5+0.9+1.0±2.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.5±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (206 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv EgorValue
FH through the middle52%−3.5−0.2−1.3−5.0±2.9
FH crosscourt29%−0.2−2.4−0.2−2.8±3.9
FH down the line20%−1.8+0.2+0.7−0.9±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +0.7±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (66 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv EgorValue
BH through the middle53%−2.9+0.2+0.3−2.3±2.6
BH crosscourt32%+1.0−0.6−1.1−0.7±3.3
BH down the line14%−0.2−0.6+2.2+1.4±4.5

Lean BH down the line: +2.6±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (105 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 grass. Each player's grass record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Egor Gerasimov

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.1±3.8+1.1±0.0
FH to the middle · rally+0.9±2.3+1.4−0.5
FH to their backhand · rally+0.8±2.9−0.2+1.0
BH to the middle · return+0.3±2.4+0.2+0.1
FH to their forehand · return +1−0.1±4.2+1.4−1.5
FH to the middle · return−0.3±2.4+1.1−1.5

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.3±4.0−0.7−2.6
BH to their forehand · rally−2.6±4.4−1.2−1.4
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.3±3.5±0.0−2.4
BH to their backhand · return−1.8±3.3−1.7−0.1
BH to their backhand · rally−1.3±2.4−0.1−1.2

Andrei Medvedev

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return +1+3.3±3.5+3.6−0.4
FH to the middle · return +1+3.1±2.8+0.7+2.5
FH to their forehand · return +1+3.1±4.4±0.0+3.2
BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.5±3.4+1.7+0.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.2±3.9+2.9−0.7
FH to the middle · rally+1.8±2.2+0.5+1.3

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to the middle · return−4.3±2.6−3.5−0.8
FH to their backhand · rally−3.2±3.0−3.1−0.1
BH to their forehand · rally−2.5±4.0−1.8−0.7
BH to their backhand · return−0.2±3.2−1.0+0.8
FH to their backhand · return±0.0±4.2+0.6−0.7

Against Andrei Medvedev-like opponents

Egor Gerasimov vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–63.5%36.2%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jannik Sinner, Thomaz Bellucci, Tennys Sandgren, Paul Henri Mathieu, Ivan Ljubicic, Andrei Pavel, Jiri Novak, Marcelo Rios, Sergi Bruguera. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.