Game plan

Emma Lene v Sara Sorribes Tormo

Every number combines what Emma Lene does well with what Sara Sorribes Tormo 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.

Emma Lene serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Emma wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	62%	62%	57.7%±12.5	51%
Body	26%	56%	51%	49.7%±13.4	11% ▼
T	23%	70%	60%	62.9%±14.2	38% ▲

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +1.0±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Emma wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	32%	67%	60%	62.4%±13.5	47% ▲
Body	32%	56%	55%	54.2%±13.8	31%
T	37%	58%	57%	50.1%±14.1	22% ▼

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +0.7±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +7.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Sara Sorribes Tormo serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Emma	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	61%	66%	61.1%±14.3	59% ▲
Body	41%	51%	53%	46.5%±12.5	26% ▼
T	15%	59%	72%	63.1%±14.8	15%

Optimal v Emma Lene: +0.8±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +7.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Emma	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	24%	58%	65%	56.8%±13.2	37% ▲
Body	52%	53%	59%	56.4%±13.2	37% ▼
T	24%	54%	65%	54.7%±15.3	26% ▲

Optimal v Emma Lene: +0.7±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +0.7 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.

Emma Lene returning

Not enough charted returns.

Sara Sorribes Tormo returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
FH through the middle	55%	+4.2	+3.8	−3.5	+4.5±2.3
FH down the line	19%	+1.5	+2.0	+0.9	+4.4±4.3
FH crosscourt	14%	+5.3	+3.1	±0.0	+8.4±3.1
FH slice through the middle	8%	−6.7	+0.1	±0.0	−6.6±1.8
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	+0.1	±0.0	−6.6±1.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.9±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (518 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	+2.4	+0.5	+9.0±2.5
BH crosscourt	22%	+7.7	+4.0	+0.1	+11.8±3.0
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+3.2	+2.0	+7.4±4.3
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	+1.9	±0.0	−4.3±1.8
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	−0.8	±0.0	−5.0±1.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (530 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
FH through the middle	50%	−3.2	+1.6	+0.6	−0.9±2.5
FH crosscourt	27%	+0.5	±0.0	±0.0	+0.5±3.1
FH down the line	23%	−0.6	+1.9	+0.4	+1.7±4.2

Lean FH down the line: +1.6±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
FH inside-out	34%	+1.4	+0.7	+0.4	+2.4±3.5
FH through the middle	31%	−2.7	+2.4	+0.6	+0.3±2.1
BH through the middle	18%	−2.6	+1.7	+0.2	−0.7±2.5
BH crosscourt	8%	+1.5	−0.1	±0.0	+1.4±2.4
BH down the line	3%	−0.5	−1.9	+1.1	−1.4±4.0

Lean FH inside-out: +1.8±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (261 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.

Emma Lene

Not enough overlapping rally data.

Sara Sorribes Tormo

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	+1.4±4.0	+4.6	−3.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	+1.4±4.0	+4.6	−3.3

Against Sara Sorribes Tormo-like opponents

Emma Lene v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	53.4%	44.4%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Tamara Zidansek, Marie Bouzkova, Viktorija Golubic, Daria Kasatkina, Katie Volynets, Sara Errani, Alize Cornet, Madison Brengle, Saisai Zheng, Jennifer Capriati. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.