Game plan
Emma Lene v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva
Every number combines what Emma Lene 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.
Emma Lene serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Emma wins | v Victoria | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 51% | 62% | 62% | 57.0%±13.4 | 51% |
| Body | 26% | 56% | 52% | 50.7%±14.6 | 11% ▼ |
| T | 23% | 70% | 67% | 69.6%±14.1 | 38% ▲ |
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 +11.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Emma wins | v Victoria | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 32% | 67% | 60% | 61.7%±14.7 | 47% ▲ |
| Body | 32% | 56% | 59% | 58.3%±14.8 | 16% ▼ |
| T | 37% | 58% | 60% | 53.6%±15.1 | 37% |
Optimal v Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva: +0.6±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Victoria wins | v Emma | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 23% | 68% | 66% | 68.1%±15.1 | 38% ▲ |
| Body | 37% | 49% | 53% | 44.2%±13.6 | 22% ▼ |
| T | 40% | 64% | 72% | 67.6%±14.1 | 40% |
Optimal v Emma Lene: +1.0±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +9.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Victoria wins | v Emma | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 57% | 65% | 56.2%±13.7 | 49% |
| Body | 33% | 53% | 59% | 56.1%±14.6 | 18% ▼ |
| T | 18% | 65% | 65% | 65.7%±16.9 | 33% ▲ |
Optimal v Emma Lene: +0.8±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +7.9 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.
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 61% | +4.2 | +0.3 | −3.5 | +0.9±2.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 27% | +5.3 | −1.1 | +0.9 | +5.1±4.1 |
| FH down the line | 11% | +1.5 | +1.3 | ±0.0 | +2.8±3.0 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (168 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 59% | +6.0 | −1.8 | +0.5 | +4.8±2.7 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +7.7 | +0.7 | +2.0 | +10.5±3.4 |
| BH down the line | 16% | +2.2 | −2.0 | +0.1 | +0.2±4.0 |
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 Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 63% | −2.6 | +0.3 | +0.2 | −2.1±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 30% | +1.5 | −1.5 | +1.1 | +1.1±3.2 |
| BH down the line | 7% | −0.5 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −0.6±2.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±2.7 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 on hard. Each player's hard 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.
Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +0.3±3.9 | +3.5 | −3.3 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +0.3±3.9 | +3.5 | −3.3 |
Against Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva-like opponents
| Emma Lene v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 53.4% | 44.4% |
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.