Game plan
Emiliana Arango v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva
Every number combines what Emiliana Arango 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.
Emiliana Arango serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Emiliana wins | v Victoria | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 60% | 62% | 55.4%±12.3 | 40% |
| Body | 31% | 47% | 52% | 41.2%±12.9 | 16% ▼ |
| T | 29% | 64% | 67% | 63.2%±13.1 | 44% ▲ |
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 +9.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Emiliana wins | v Victoria | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 54% | 60% | 47.9%±12.0 | 49% |
| Body | 20% | 47% | 59% | 49.4%±14.1 | 5% ▼ |
| T | 31% | 55% | 60% | 50.2%±13.3 | 46% ▲ |
Optimal v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva: +0.7±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Victoria wins | v Emiliana | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 23% | 68% | 62% | 64.1%±12.9 | 38% ▲ |
| Body | 37% | 49% | 57% | 48.2%±13.0 | 22% ▼ |
| T | 40% | 64% | 71% | 67.1%±11.7 | 40% |
Optimal v Emiliana Arango: +0.8±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +7.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Victoria wins | v Emiliana | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 57% | 65% | 56.6%±11.4 | 49% |
| Body | 33% | 53% | 60% | 56.6%±14.2 | 18% ▼ |
| T | 18% | 65% | 64% | 64.8%±15.0 | 33% ▲ |
Optimal v Emiliana Arango: +0.7±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.7 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.
Emiliana Arango returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Victoria | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 47% | +4.2 | +0.3 | −1.2 | +3.2±3.1 |
| FH down the line | 20% | +1.5 | +0.9 | −0.6 | +1.9±4.3 |
| FH slice through the middle | 19% | −6.7 | +0.3 | −1.1 | −7.5±2.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 14% | +5.3 | ±0.0 | −0.2 | +5.1±3.8 |
Lean FH through the middle: +2.0±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (59 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Victoria | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 58% | +6.0 | −1.6 | +1.7 | +6.1±2.8 |
| BH down the line | 22% | +2.2 | −0.5 | −2.0 | −0.3±4.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 12% | +7.7 | +0.4 | +2.5 | +10.6±3.2 |
| BH slice through the middle | 8% | −6.2 | +0.5 | −0.5 | −6.2±2.0 |
Lean BH through the middle: +1.9±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (76 returns charted)
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emiliana | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 61% | +4.2 | +0.3 | +0.7 | +5.1±3.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 27% | +5.3 | −1.1 | +1.0 | +5.2±4.2 |
| FH down the line | 11% | +1.5 | +1.3 | +1.4 | +4.2±4.0 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +0.2±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (168 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emiliana | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 59% | +6.0 | −1.8 | −1.2 | +3.0±2.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +7.7 | +0.7 | +1.1 | +9.5±3.3 |
| BH down the line | 16% | +2.2 | −2.0 | +2.5 | +2.6±4.6 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +5.0±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (215 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emiliana | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 63% | −2.6 | +0.3 | −3.4 | −5.7±2.7 |
| BH crosscourt | 30% | +1.5 | −1.5 | +0.4 | +0.4±2.8 |
| BH down the line | 7% | −0.5 | −0.1 | −2.0 | −2.7±4.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.1±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (70 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 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.
Emiliana Arango
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · rally | +3.5±2.5 | +1.4 | +2.1 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +1.8±3.6 | +0.8 | +1.0 |
| BH to the middle · return | +0.5±2.7 | −0.4 | +0.9 |
| BH to the middle · rally | −0.9±2.3 | −0.5 | −0.4 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.2±2.9 | −1.0 | −0.2 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −2.3±3.7 | −3.8 | +1.5 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | −2.3±3.7 | −3.8 | +1.5 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.2±2.9 | −1.0 | −0.2 |
| BH to the middle · rally | −0.9±2.3 | −0.5 | −0.4 |
| BH to the middle · return | +0.5±2.7 | −0.4 | +0.9 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +1.8±3.6 | +0.8 | +1.0 |
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +4.1±3.4 | +3.1 | +0.9 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.3±2.4 | −0.6 | +0.9 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −1.0±3.3 | ±0.0 | −1.0 |
| BH to the middle · return | −4.5±2.6 | −1.4 | −3.1 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −5.3±3.5 | −1.8 | −3.5 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | −5.3±3.5 | −1.8 | −3.5 |
| BH to the middle · return | −4.5±2.6 | −1.4 | −3.1 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −1.0±3.3 | ±0.0 | −1.0 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.3±2.4 | −0.6 | +0.9 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +4.1±3.4 | +3.1 | +0.9 |
Against Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva-like opponents
| Emiliana Arango v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 44.6% | 40.3% |
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.