Game plan
Emma Raducanu v Linda Noskova
Every number combines what Emma Raducanu does well with what Linda Noskova allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Emma Raducanu's record against Linda Noskova's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −6.3 on serve, −4.2 on return vs expectation (287 points); head-to-head: +0.6 on serve, +6.2 on return vs expectation (216 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 | Emma | Linda |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.02 ±0.05 better than 50% | +0.14 ±0.05 better than 79% |
| Shot selection | −0.09 ±0.09 better than 35% | −0.07 ±0.09 better than 39% |
| Execution | +0.76 ±0.31 better than 86% | +0.02 ±0.49 better than 62% |
| Points left on the table | 2.53 ±0.07 lower than 63% | 2.63 ±0.08 lower than 47% |
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.
Structural compatibility
Expected edge per 100 rally shots from style alone: Emma Raducanu +0.65, Linda Noskova ±0.00. Each player's shot mix weighted by their own skill with each shot and by how much the other gives up against it. This is why some rankings gaps don't hold in a given matchup.
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 Raducanu serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Emma wins | v Linda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 46% | 68% | 65% | 67.4%±4.4 | 55% ▲ |
| Body | 25% | 56% | 57% | 56.4%±6.2 | 10% ▼ |
| T | 29% | 68% | 74% | 73.9%±4.8 | 35% ▲ |
Optimal v Linda Noskova: +0.9±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +7.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Emma wins | v Linda | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 44% | 71% | 70% | 74.6%±4.3 | 60% ▲ |
| Body | 17% | 51% | 58% | 52.9%±7.2 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 63% | 66% | 65.1%±5.0 | 39% |
Optimal v Linda Noskova: +1.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Linda Noskova serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Linda wins | v Emma | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 70% | 64% | 68.1%±4.4 | 55% ▲ |
| Body | 10% | 57% | 57% | 56.0%±7.5 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 50% | 73% | 68% | 72.8%±4.5 | 45% ▼ |
Optimal v Emma Raducanu: +0.8±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Linda wins | v Emma | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 72% | 64% | 70.4%±4.6 | 42% ▼ |
| Body | 8% | 52% | 59% | 55.5%±8.4 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 42% | 68% | 64% | 67.5%±4.8 | 58% ▲ |
Optimal v Emma Raducanu: +0.5±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.5 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 Raducanu returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Linda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 46% | +4.2 | +2.0 | +0.6 | +6.7±2.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | +5.3 | +1.9 | −0.5 | +6.8±3.6 |
| FH down the line | 14% | +1.5 | +5.0 | −1.1 | +5.5±4.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 12% | −6.7 | +0.8 | −0.3 | −6.2±2.3 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 4% | −6.6 | +0.8 | ±0.0 | −5.8±2.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (954 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Linda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 47% | +6.0 | +2.7 | −0.4 | +8.4±1.9 |
| BH crosscourt | 28% | +7.7 | +3.2 | −0.6 | +10.3±2.9 |
| BH slice through the middle | 11% | −6.2 | +0.7 | −0.6 | −6.1±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 10% | +2.2 | +2.5 | +4.4 | +9.0±4.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 3% | −4.2 | +0.8 | −0.8 | −4.2±2.9 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.7±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (834 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Linda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 47% | −3.2 | +2.1 | −1.3 | −2.4±2.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 34% | +0.5 | −0.1 | −3.6 | −3.2±4.2 |
| FH down the line | 17% | −0.6 | −0.2 | −2.2 | −3.0±5.2 |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | −15.2 | +0.7 | −0.7 | −15.2±1.7 |
Lean FH through the middle: +0.7±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (254 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Linda | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 44% | −2.6 | −0.5 | +0.9 | −2.1±2.1 |
| BH crosscourt | 41% | +1.5 | +0.3 | −1.9 | −0.2±3.0 |
| BH down the line | 14% | −0.5 | −2.5 | −1.2 | −4.2±5.0 |
| BH slice through the middle | 1% | −11.7 | −0.6 | −0.2 | −12.5±1.4 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (470 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Linda Noskova returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 40% | +4.2 | +2.7 | +2.2 | +9.0±2.0 |
| FH down the line | 19% | +1.5 | ±0.0 | −0.9 | +0.6±4.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 16% | +5.3 | +0.3 | +0.7 | +6.4±3.6 |
| FH slice through the middle | 15% | −6.7 | +1.2 | +2.1 | −3.4±2.3 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 8% | −6.6 | −0.6 | +0.3 | −7.0±2.8 |
Lean FH through the middle: +5.7±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (714 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 41% | +6.0 | −0.9 | −1.0 | +4.1±1.9 |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | +7.7 | −0.7 | −0.8 | +6.3±2.9 |
| BH down the line | 12% | +2.2 | −3.7 | −1.1 | −2.6±4.2 |
| BH slice through the middle | 11% | −6.2 | −1.3 | −1.0 | −8.5±2.5 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 8% | −4.2 | −1.9 | −0.6 | −6.7±3.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +5.4±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (631 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | −3.2 | −2.0 | −1.6 | −6.8±2.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 27% | +0.5 | +0.3 | +1.9 | +2.7±4.1 |
| FH down the line | 25% | −0.6 | −5.0 | −1.2 | −6.8±5.1 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 4% | −14.9 | −0.6 | ±0.0 | −15.5±1.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +7.2±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (197 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Emma | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 39% | +1.5 | −1.9 | −1.4 | −1.8±3.1 |
| BH through the middle | 32% | −2.6 | +0.9 | −1.2 | −2.8±2.4 |
| BH down the line | 26% | −0.5 | +2.2 | +0.7 | +2.4±5.1 |
| FH through the middle | 3% | −2.7 | −0.6 | −1.6 | −4.9±1.9 |
Lean BH down the line: +3.6±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (338 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.
Emma Raducanu
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | +6.5±6.0 | +2.9 | +3.6 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +5.2±5.2 | +3.1 | +2.2 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | +4.7±4.8 | +3.2 | +1.5 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +4.2±4.5 | +0.8 | +3.4 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +3.9±3.5 | +2.2 | +1.6 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +2.4±3.6 | +1.7 | +0.7 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · rally | −7.2±5.3 | −3.9 | −3.3 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | −4.9±4.7 | −1.6 | −3.4 |
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | −4.8±6.1 | −2.0 | −2.8 |
| BH slice to the middle · return | −4.1±3.2 | −0.7 | −3.5 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | −3.9±3.0 | −1.3 | −2.6 |
Linda Noskova
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | +8.5±6.1 | +2.7 | +5.7 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +6.4±4.6 | +2.5 | +4.0 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | +6.3±4.8 | +3.1 | +3.2 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +5.7±5.1 | +4.0 | +1.8 |
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | +5.1±5.8 | +3.8 | +1.3 |
| FH slice to the middle · return | +3.3±2.8 | +1.0 | +2.3 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return | −6.6±5.0 | −1.1 | −5.5 |
| FH to the middle · return +1 | −4.8±3.3 | −1.8 | −3.0 |
| BH slice to the middle · return | −4.5±2.9 | −3.2 | −1.3 |
| BH to the middle · return | −4.3±2.6 | −3.1 | −1.2 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | −4.0±5.1 | −5.3 | +1.3 |
Against Linda Noskova-like opponents
| Emma Raducanu v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 58.0% | 43.3% |
| Players most similar to Linda Noskova | 2 | 52.6% | 39.6% |
| Linda Noskova (charted head-to-head) | 1 | 58.6% | 46.7% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Barbora Krejcikova, Clara Tauson, Viktoria Hruncakova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Sofia Kenin, Aliaksandra Sasnovich, Veronika Kudermetova, Petra Kvitova, Sabine Lisicki, Johanna Konta. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.