Game plan

Elena Dementieva v Mirra Andreeva

Every number combines what Elena Dementieva does well with what Mirra Andreeva allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Elena Dementieva wins, best of 3 48%90%: 25%–72% · best of 5: 48%

Serve points won 54.1% / 54.4% Elena / Mirra · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 44%serve 53.9% / 55.0%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Elena Dementieva's record against Mirra Andreeva's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +7.3 on serve, +16.7 on return vs expectation (99 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	Elena	Mirra
Direction choice	+0.08 ±0.05 better than 69%	+0.12 ±0.04 better than 75%
Shot selection	+0.16 ±0.09 better than 61%	−0.43 ±0.08 better than 15%
Execution	+0.58 ±0.32 better than 81%	+1.22 ±0.22 better than 95%
Points left on the table	2.45 ±0.08 lower than 69%	2.42 ±0.06 lower than 73%

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.

Elena Dementieva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Elena wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	57%	64%	60%	57.3%±3.6	41% ▼
Body	12%	65%	56%	63.1%±6.7	27% ▲
T	32%	71%	61%	64.1%±4.9	32%

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.2±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Elena wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	61%	64%	59.4%±4.5	44% ▲
Body	21%	54%	47%	44.8%±6.1	6% ▼
T	37%	63%	62%	60.4%±4.4	50% ▲

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Mirra Andreeva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Mirra wins	v Elena	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	69%	65%	68.4%±3.7	66% ▲
Body	13%	59%	60%	61.8%±6.3	0% ▼
T	36%	73%	61%	67.4%±4.1	34% ▼

Optimal v Elena Dementieva: +0.5±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Mirra wins	v Elena	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	67%	60%	61.1%±4.2	31% ▼
Body	21%	61%	55%	60.1%±7.1	9% ▼
T	45%	65%	62%	63.2%±4.5	60% ▲

Optimal v Elena Dementieva: +0.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.4 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.

Elena Dementieva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH through the middle	43%	+4.2	−0.5	+0.1	+3.8±1.7
FH down the line	35%	+1.5	−1.0	−1.6	−1.1±3.1
FH crosscourt	19%	+5.3	−0.4	−1.9	+3.0±3.1
BH through the middle	1%	+5.2	+0.3	−0.6	+4.9±1.8
FH slice through the middle	1%	−6.7	−0.3	−0.9	−8.0±1.9

Lean FH through the middle: +2.0±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (811 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	−1.2	−0.6	+4.2±1.4
BH crosscourt	25%	+7.7	−2.0	−0.8	+4.9±2.4
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−1.0	−0.5	+0.7±3.6
BH slice through the middle	5%	−6.2	−4.2	+0.1	−10.4±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	2%	−4.2	−3.2	−2.7	−10.0±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.4±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (1084 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH down the line	36%	−0.6	−1.1	−2.2	−3.9±4.6
FH crosscourt	35%	+0.5	+2.7	−2.9	+0.3±3.8
FH through the middle	29%	−3.2	+0.2	+0.4	−2.7±2.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.4±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (286 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH through the middle	45%	−2.6	−0.4	+0.1	−2.8±1.7
BH crosscourt	32%	+1.5	+0.9	−0.1	+2.4±2.5
BH down the line	11%	−0.5	+1.5	−2.9	−1.9±4.4
FH through the middle	6%	−2.7	−0.4	+0.4	−2.7±2.2
FH inside-out	3%	+1.4	−0.8	−2.2	−1.7±3.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.3±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (601 returns charted)

Mirra Andreeva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Elena	Value
FH through the middle	34%	+4.2	+1.5	+1.6	+7.3±1.6
FH down the line	24%	+1.5	+3.1	+0.7	+5.3±2.8
FH slice through the middle	19%	−6.7	+0.1	+1.0	−5.6±2.1
FH slice crosscourt	11%	−6.6	+0.6	+1.5	−4.5±2.2
FH crosscourt	8%	+5.3	−3.2	−1.0	+1.1±3.2

Lean FH through the middle: +5.2±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (2589 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Elena	Value
BH through the middle	46%	+6.0	+1.9	−0.2	+7.7±1.6
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	+0.2	−0.8	+7.2±2.5
BH down the line	14%	+2.2	+3.5	+0.2	+5.9±3.8
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−2.0	−0.6	−8.8±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.2	−2.7	−1.2	−8.1±2.9

Lean BH through the middle: +3.0±1.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (1925 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Elena	Value
FH through the middle	37%	−3.2	+1.0	+2.3	±0.0±2.2
FH down the line	34%	−0.6	±0.0	−1.1	−1.7±3.9
FH crosscourt	15%	+0.5	−5.4	+2.3	−2.6±3.7
BH through the middle	5%	−1.0	+0.5	+0.1	−0.4±2.3
BH inside-in	3%	+2.0	+0.6	−0.7	+1.8±3.7

Lean BH inside-in: +3.5±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (743 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Elena	Value
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+1.0	+0.1	−1.5±2.2
BH down the line	31%	−0.5	+0.8	+2.6	+2.9±4.5
BH crosscourt	25%	+1.5	−1.4	−0.7	−0.6±3.0
FH through the middle	3%	−2.7	−1.2	+2.3	−1.7±2.3
FH inside-in	2%	+0.7	+0.3	+2.3	+3.3±3.8

Lean FH inside-in: +3.1±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (1071 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 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.

Elena Dementieva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+4.1±6.2	+2.7	+1.4
FH to their forehand · return +1	+3.9±3.8	+2.6	+1.3
FH to the middle · rally	+3.8±2.1	+2.0	+1.7
BH to the middle · rally	+3.6±1.8	+3.2	+0.4
BH to the middle · return +1	+3.5±2.4	+2.3	+1.2
FH to the middle · serve +1	+3.1±2.6	+3.7	−0.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	−4.8±3.9	−2.1	−2.6
BH to their forehand · rally	−4.2±3.6	−1.8	−2.4
BH slice to their forehand · rally	−3.8±4.5	+1.1	−4.9
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−1.9±3.7	−0.1	−1.8
BH to their forehand · return	−1.9±4.4	+1.1	−2.9

Mirra Andreeva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+5.5±7.8	+1.7	+3.8
BH to the middle · return +1	+4.2±2.6	+0.5	+3.7
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+3.8±3.1	+1.5	+2.3
BH to their forehand · return	+3.6±4.5	+1.4	+2.2
FH slice to the middle · rally	+3.3±3.1	+1.4	+1.9
FH to the middle · return	+2.8±2.3	+1.1	+1.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−4.6±3.2	−2.6	−2.0
BH slice to their forehand · rally	−4.3±4.8	−5.9	+1.6
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−3.2±3.5	+0.7	−3.9
FH to their forehand · return	−3.1±4.3	−4.6	+1.5
FH to their backhand · rally	−2.9±2.5	+0.7	−3.5

Against Mirra Andreeva-like opponents

Elena Dementieva v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	55.9%	46.4%
Players most similar to Mirra Andreeva	1	62.0%	63.3%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Belinda Bencic, Elise Mertens, Sorana Cirstea, Victoria Azarenka, Simona Halep, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Christina Mchale, Timea Bacsinszky, Agnieszka Radwanska. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.