Game plan

Erika Andreeva v Nadia Podoroska

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

Forecast

Erika Andreeva wins, best of 3 64%90%: 27%–90% · best of 5: 67%

Serve points won 59.4% / 56.8% Erika / Nadia · tour 56.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 60%serve 59.1% / 57.2%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Erika Andreeva's record against Nadia Podoroska's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +7.5 on serve, +10.6 on return vs expectation (127 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	Erika	Nadia
Direction choice	−0.03 ±0.12 better than 49%	−0.12 ±0.12 better than 33%
Shot selection	+0.36 ±0.09 better than 86%	+0.26 ±0.15 better than 74%
Execution	−0.33 ±0.95 better than 43%	−1.45 ±0.80 better than 11%

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.

Erika Andreeva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Erika wins	v Nadia	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	56%	59%	71%	64.6%±10.7	65% ▲
Body	24%	57%	65%	64.7%±12.4	9% ▼
T	20%	63%	69%	64.1%±13.8	26% ▲

Optimal v Nadia Podoroska: +0.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +0.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Erika wins	v Nadia	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	61%	70%	65.7%±10.7	64% ▲
Body	17%	52%	62%	58.0%±14.8	2% ▼
T	35%	65%	64%	63.8%±12.7	34%

Optimal v Nadia Podoroska: +0.8±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Nadia Podoroska serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Nadia wins	v Erika	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	36%	57%	71%	62.4%±11.1	36%
Body	21%	50%	57%	50.3%±13.4	6% ▼
T	43%	66%	75%	73.7%±11.4	58% ▲

Optimal v Erika Andreeva: +1.2±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +9.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Nadia wins	v Erika	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	34%	60%	68%	62.5%±12.7	49% ▲
Body	23%	64%	44%	51.8%±13.3	8% ▼
T	43%	55%	69%	60.1%±11.5	43%

Optimal v Erika Andreeva: +0.4±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.5 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.

Erika Andreeva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nadia	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.2	+0.3	+0.8	+5.3±3.0
FH down the line	28%	+1.5	+1.9	+0.5	+3.9±4.7
FH crosscourt	20%	+5.3	+1.5	−0.3	+6.5±4.2
FH slice through the middle	7%	−6.7	−0.2	−0.4	−7.3±1.9
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	−0.7	+1.0	−6.4±1.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (110 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nadia	Value
BH through the middle	60%	+6.0	−0.2	−0.1	+5.7±2.8
BH down the line	23%	+2.2	+0.7	+2.1	+5.0±4.0
BH crosscourt	16%	+7.7	−1.8	+0.8	+6.8±3.1

Lean BH through the middle: ±0.0±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (43 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nadia	Value
FH through the middle	35%	−3.2	+0.6	−0.9	−3.5±2.8
FH crosscourt	33%	+0.5	−1.1	−1.7	−2.3±4.0
FH down the line	33%	−0.6	+1.7	−1.5	−0.3±4.5

Nadia Podoroska returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Erika	Value
FH through the middle	42%	+4.2	−0.8	+1.4	+4.8±3.2
FH crosscourt	19%	+5.3	+0.1	−0.4	+4.9±4.2
FH slice through the middle	19%	−6.7	−0.1	±0.0	−6.8±2.1
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	+2.0	+1.8	+5.4±3.9
FH slice crosscourt	8%	−6.6	+1.2	±0.0	−5.4±1.5

Lean FH down the line: +3.5±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (144 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Erika	Value
BH through the middle	56%	+6.0	+0.4	−0.6	+5.8±2.9
BH crosscourt	26%	+7.7	−0.4	+0.4	+7.8±3.4
BH down the line	10%	+2.2	−1.2	+2.4	+3.4±4.2
BH slice through the middle	5%	−6.2	+0.5	−0.3	−6.1±1.8
BH slice down the line	3%	−12.5	+0.8	±0.0	−11.7±1.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (171 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Erika	Value
BH through the middle	41%	−2.6	+0.8	−2.1	−3.9±2.7
BH crosscourt	30%	+1.5	−1.0	+0.7	+1.2±3.6
FH through the middle	13%	−2.7	±0.0	−0.9	−3.6±2.4
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	−2.2	−0.8	−3.5±3.8
FH inside-in	5%	+0.7	+0.6	+1.4	+2.7±3.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (98 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 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.

Erika Andreeva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	+3.9±6.7	+3.6	+0.3
BH to the middle · return	+3.0±3.9	+2.1	+0.9
BH to their forehand · rally	+2.7±6.9	+4.1	−1.4
FH to the middle · return	+2.1±4.2	+2.6	−0.5
FH to their backhand · rally	−0.2±5.3	+1.5	−1.7
BH to their backhand · rally	−1.4±4.6	+0.3	−1.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	−4.1±4.8	−1.5	−2.6
BH to the middle · rally	−4.0±3.4	−1.1	−2.9
FH to the middle · rally	−3.6±3.8	−1.4	−2.2
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−3.5±6.2	−0.6	−2.9
BH to their backhand · rally	−1.4±4.6	+0.3	−1.7

Nadia Podoroska

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	+3.3±4.6	+2.5	+0.8
FH to the middle · rally	+2.7±3.6	−0.6	+3.2
FH to their backhand · rally	+0.9±5.7	+0.2	+0.6
BH to the middle · rally	−0.7±3.5	−2.3	+1.6
BH to their backhand · rally	−1.2±4.6	−1.9	+0.7
FH to the middle · return	−1.6±4.0	−2.0	+0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	−4.0±3.7	−0.8	−3.2
FH to the middle · return	−1.6±4.0	−2.0	+0.4
BH to their backhand · rally	−1.2±4.6	−1.9	+0.7
BH to the middle · rally	−0.7±3.5	−2.3	+1.6
FH to their backhand · rally	+0.9±5.7	+0.2	+0.6

Against Nadia Podoroska-like opponents

Erika Andreeva v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	52.8%	39.6%
Players most similar to Nadia Podoroska	1	63.6%	50.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Diana Shnaider, Ashlyn Krueger, Bianca Andreescu, Jasmine Paolini, Maya Joint, Maria Sakkari, Nao Hibino, Irina Camelia Begu, Andrea Petkovic, Dominika Cibulkova. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.