Game plan

Fabian Marozsan v Botic Van De Zandschulp

Every number combines what Fabian Marozsan does well with what Botic Van De Zandschulp allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Fabian Marozsan wins, best of 3 28%90%: 9%–58% · best of 5: 23%

Serve points won 62.6% / 67.3% Fabian / Botic · tour 65.7%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 28%serve 62.6% / 67.3%

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 Fabian Marozsan's record against Botic Van De Zandschulp's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads. 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	Fabian	Botic
Direction choice	+0.17 ±0.08 better than 91%	−0.09 ±0.03 better than 32%
Shot selection	+0.04 ±0.26 better than 58%	+0.08 ±0.08 better than 62%
Execution	+0.87 ±0.78 better than 93%	−1.07 ±0.25 better than 23%
Points left on the table	2.29 ±0.13 lower than 85%	2.53 ±0.06 lower than 58%

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: Fabian Marozsan −0.34, Botic Van De Zandschulp +0.86. 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.

Fabian Marozsan serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Fabian wins	v Botic	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	69%	72%	67.7%±4.9	46%
Body	10%	69%	63%	69.1%±8.2	23% ▲
T	44%	69%	70%	63.7%±5.5	31% ▼

Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.2±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +3.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Fabian wins	v Botic	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	50%	71%	71%	68.5%±5.0	63% ▲
Body	11%	69%	64%	69.2%±8.3	12%
T	38%	64%	69%	60.5%±5.8	25% ▼

Optimal v Botic Van De Zandschulp: +0.3±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +3.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Botic Van De Zandschulp serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Botic wins	v Fabian	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	72%	72%	71.0%±4.8	40% ▼
Body	12%	63%	61%	61.1%±9.9	0% ▼
T	47%	77%	79%	80.7%±4.1	60% ▲

Optimal v Fabian Marozsan: +1.1±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +6.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Botic wins	v Fabian	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	37%	72%	72%	71.9%±5.2	37%
Body	15%	58%	64%	58.8%±11.4	2% ▼
T	47%	70%	71%	69.6%±5.2	61% ▲

Optimal v Fabian Marozsan: +1.1±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.1 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.

Fabian Marozsan returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
FH through the middle	39%	+4.3	+1.4	−0.1	+5.5±2.1
FH crosscourt	19%	+5.5	+4.6	−3.5	+6.6±3.7
FH slice through the middle	16%	−4.2	+0.1	−1.6	−5.7±2.0
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	+4.8	−2.1	+4.5±3.8
FH slice down the line	8%	−4.3	+1.0	−3.0	−6.3±3.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (360 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
BH through the middle	40%	+6.4	+2.1	+0.6	+9.2±2.1
BH crosscourt	30%	+8.8	+2.5	−2.8	+8.5±2.8
BH slice through the middle	11%	−4.2	+0.2	−2.8	−6.8±2.1
BH down the line	11%	+4.2	−1.2	−5.8	−2.7±4.1
BH slice crosscourt	6%	+0.5	−0.9	−4.7	−5.1±2.7

Lean BH through the middle: +4.7±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (317 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
FH through the middle	44%	−3.5	+0.6	+0.7	−2.2±2.3
FH down the line	26%	−1.8	−0.4	−0.4	−2.6±3.8
FH crosscourt	24%	−0.2	+1.6	−2.5	−1.1±3.6
FH slice through the middle	6%	−12.7	−0.1	−1.3	−14.1±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.6±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (104 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Botic	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.9	+2.4	+0.8	+0.3±1.9
BH crosscourt	40%	+1.0	+1.7	−1.6	+1.1±2.7
BH down the line	13%	−0.2	+1.8	−0.1	+1.6±4.5

Lean BH down the line: +0.8±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (229 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Botic Van De Zandschulp returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Fabian	Value
FH through the middle	48%	+4.3	+1.5	+3.4	+9.1±2.0
FH crosscourt	22%	+5.5	−3.9	+7.1	+8.7±3.6
FH down the line	16%	+1.7	−1.6	+2.9	+3.0±3.8
FH slice through the middle	9%	−4.2	−1.9	−0.6	−6.7±2.1
FH slice down the line	3%	−4.3	−4.2	+0.9	−7.5±3.1

Lean FH through the middle: +3.3±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (2055 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Fabian	Value
BH through the middle	42%	+6.4	−0.3	+3.5	+9.6±1.9
BH crosscourt	28%	+8.8	−2.7	+4.9	+11.0±2.6
BH slice through the middle	14%	−4.2	−1.4	+0.3	−5.3±2.2
BH down the line	8%	+4.2	−0.9	+3.4	+6.7±4.2
BH slice crosscourt	6%	+0.5	−3.3	+1.7	−1.1±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (2166 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Fabian	Value
FH through the middle	53%	−3.5	−0.4	+1.0	−2.9±2.5
FH crosscourt	31%	−0.2	−1.8	+0.9	−1.1±4.2
FH down the line	14%	−1.8	−5.4	−0.7	−7.9±4.7
FH slice through the middle	2%	−12.7	−1.2	±0.0	−13.9±1.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.1±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (449 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Fabian	Value
BH through the middle	48%	−2.9	−2.0	+1.0	−3.9±1.8
BH crosscourt	41%	+1.0	−4.5	+1.2	−2.2±2.4
BH down the line	6%	−0.2	+0.3	+3.7	+3.8±5.0
FH through the middle	2%	−2.9	−0.4	+1.0	−2.3±2.3
FH inside-out	1%	+1.0	−1.9	−0.7	−1.7±3.4

Lean BH down the line: +6.5±4.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (1291 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.

Fabian Marozsan

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	+4.9±2.6	+2.0	+2.9
FH to the middle · serve +1	+2.6±3.0	+0.6	+1.9
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+1.7±4.0	+0.8	+0.9
FH to their forehand · return	+1.1±4.7	+4.7	−3.5
FH slice to the middle · rally	+0.7±2.7	−1.0	+1.8
BH to the middle · serve +1	+0.7±2.9	+0.3	+0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−6.9±2.8	−3.9	−3.0
BH to their forehand · return +1	−5.0±5.4	±0.0	−5.0
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.7±3.4	+0.2	−3.9
BH to their forehand · return	−3.6±5.0	+0.3	−3.9
BH to the middle · return +1	−3.2±2.9	−2.6	−0.6

Botic Van De Zandschulp

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	+5.4±4.6	+2.5	+2.9
FH to their forehand · return	+4.8±4.9	−1.0	+5.9
FH to the middle · return	+3.8±2.8	+0.7	+3.1
BH to their forehand · return	+3.2±5.0	−1.6	+4.8
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+2.8±5.3	+1.2	+1.7
BH to their backhand · return +1	+2.5±3.6	+0.9	+1.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · serve +1	−2.5±2.9	−0.5	−2.1
BH to their backhand · rally	−1.9±2.9	−1.7	−0.3
FH slice to the middle · rally	−1.2±2.6	−0.9	−0.4
FH to their backhand · return	−0.9±4.5	−2.8	+1.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−0.2±2.7	+1.0	−1.2

Against Botic Van De Zandschulp-like opponents

Fabian Marozsan v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	61.6%	34.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jesper De Jong, Zhizhen Zhang, Aleksandar Kovacevic, Nuno Borges, Zizou Bergs, Miomir Kecmanovic, Mackenzie Mcdonald, Jordan Thompson, Emil Ruusuvuori, Andreas Seppi. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.