Game plan

Ekaterine Gorgodze v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva

Every number combines what Ekaterine Gorgodze does well with what Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

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.

Ekaterine Gorgodze serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Ekaterine wins	v Victoria	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	27%	56%	62%	51.7%±13.4	27%
Body	42%	55%	52%	49.6%±11.8	26% ▼
T	31%	63%	67%	62.1%±13.2	47% ▲

Optimal v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva: +0.6±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +8.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Ekaterine wins	v Victoria	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	61%	60%	54.6%±11.8	49%
Body	36%	45%	59%	47.9%±13.0	21% ▼
T	15%	64%	60%	59.7%±14.8	30% ▲

Optimal v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva: +0.8±1.3 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.

Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Victoria wins	v Ekaterine	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	23%	68%	60%	62.2%±14.1	38% ▲
Body	37%	49%	61%	53.1%±11.9	22% ▼
T	40%	64%	65%	60.3%±13.7	40%

Optimal v Ekaterine Gorgodze: +0.6±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Victoria wins	v Ekaterine	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	57%	65%	57.1%±13.0	49%
Body	33%	53%	54%	51.0%±12.4	18% ▼
T	18%	65%	61%	62.3%±15.6	33% ▲

Optimal v Ekaterine Gorgodze: +0.7±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.2 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.

Ekaterine Gorgodze returning

Not enough charted returns.

Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Ekaterine	Value
FH through the middle	61%	+4.2	+0.3	+0.9	+5.3±3.1
FH crosscourt	27%	+5.3	−1.1	+1.7	+5.8±3.6
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	+1.3	+3.2	+6.0±4.4

Lean FH down the line: +0.5±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (168 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Ekaterine	Value
BH through the middle	59%	+6.0	−1.8	+1.7	+5.9±2.8
BH crosscourt	25%	+7.7	+0.7	+1.6	+10.1±3.6
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−2.0	+3.3	+3.5±4.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.5±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (215 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Ekaterine	Value
BH through the middle	63%	−2.6	+0.3	+0.1	−2.2±2.3
BH crosscourt	30%	+1.5	−1.5	±0.0	±0.0±2.4
BH down the line	7%	−0.5	−0.1	+0.4	−0.3±3.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.4±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (70 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.

Ekaterine Gorgodze

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · rally	+2.6±2.5	+0.5	+2.1
BH to the middle · rally	+0.6±2.3	+1.0	−0.4
FH to their backhand · rally	−0.4±3.4	−2.0	+1.5
FH to their forehand · rally	−2.9±3.3	−4.0	+1.0
BH to their backhand · rally	−5.1±3.4	−3.7	−1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · rally	−5.1±3.4	−3.7	−1.4
FH to their forehand · rally	−2.9±3.3	−4.0	+1.0
FH to their backhand · rally	−0.4±3.4	−2.0	+1.5
BH to the middle · rally	+0.6±2.3	+1.0	−0.4
FH to the middle · rally	+2.6±2.5	+0.5	+2.1

Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	+6.5±3.3	+3.1	+3.4
FH to the middle · return	+1.6±2.8	+0.6	+1.0
BH to the middle · rally	+1.6±2.3	+0.4	+1.2
FH to the middle · rally	−0.2±2.4	−0.6	+0.4
BH to their forehand · rally	−0.2±4.2	−0.3	+0.1
FH to their forehand · rally	−0.9±3.5	−1.8	+0.8

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−3.6±4.2	−0.2	−3.4
FH to their forehand · rally	−0.9±3.5	−1.8	+0.8
BH to their forehand · rally	−0.2±4.2	−0.3	+0.1
FH to the middle · rally	−0.2±2.4	−0.6	+0.4
BH to the middle · rally	+1.6±2.3	+0.4	+1.2

Against Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva-like opponents

Ekaterine Gorgodze v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	47.3%	43.9%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Diana Shnaider, Arantxa Rus, Jil Teichmann, Sara Bejlek, Olga Danilovic, Xiyu Wang, Nao Hibino, Beatriz Haddad Maia, Lesia Tsurenko, Martina Trevisan. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.