Game plan

Gilles Muller v Mark Philippoussis

Every number combines what Gilles Muller does well with what Mark Philippoussis allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Gilles Muller wins, best of 3 43%90%: 21%–68% · best of 5: 41%

Serve points won 69.5% / 71.1% Gilles / Mark · tour 63.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 44%serve 69.8% / 71.0%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Gilles Muller's record against Mark Philippoussis's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −2.3 on serve, −0.5 on return vs expectation (364 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	Gilles	Mark
Direction choice	+0.24 ±0.16 better than 96%	+0.07 ±0.14 better than 74%
Shot selection	+0.37 ±0.36 better than 85%	+0.32 ±0.21 better than 82%
Execution	−0.84 ±0.63 better than 31%	−1.40 ±0.61 better than 12%
Points left on the table	3.21 ±0.28 lower than 12%	3.53 ±0.34 lower than 8%

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.

Gilles Muller serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Gilles wins	v Mark	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	77%	79%	81.9%±5.3	32% ▼
Body	4%	62%	65%	63.4%±13.2	0% ▼
T	55%	76%	83%	83.8%±4.6	68% ▲

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +0.5±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Gilles wins	v Mark	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	81%	78%	84.5%±4.7	62% ▲
Body	9%	72%	64%	72.5%±11.6	0% ▼
T	42%	78%	77%	82.7%±5.4	38% ▼

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +1.0±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Mark Philippoussis serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Mark wins	v Gilles	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	81%	76%	83.7%±4.6	40% ▼
Body	7%	66%	70%	71.7%±11.3	0% ▼
T	47%	80%	80%	84.3%±5.1	60% ▲

Optimal v Gilles Muller: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Mark wins	v Gilles	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	50%	79%	79%	83.7%±4.9	41% ▼
Body	4%	63%	62%	62.1%±14.3	0% ▼
T	46%	79%	80%	85.8%±4.7	59% ▲

Optimal v Gilles Muller: +0.6±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.1 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.

Gilles Muller returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mark	Value
FH through the middle	36%	+4.3	+1.2	−0.8	+4.6±2.8
FH crosscourt	22%	+5.5	−0.5	−2.0	+3.1±4.3
FH down the line	20%	+1.7	+0.9	−1.9	+0.7±4.5
FH slice through the middle	10%	−4.2	+2.0	+0.1	−2.1±2.0
FH slice crosscourt	8%	−4.3	+1.2	+0.1	−3.0±2.1

Lean FH through the middle: +2.8±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (210 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mark	Value
BH through the middle	27%	+6.4	+0.2	−3.7	+3.0±2.7
BH slice through the middle	23%	−4.2	+0.3	−0.5	−4.4±2.4
BH down the line	16%	+4.2	−2.1	−1.7	+0.4±4.6
BH slice down the line	14%	−8.4	+0.5	−1.0	−8.9±3.5
BH crosscourt	11%	+8.8	−1.5	−3.2	+4.2±3.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.1±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mark	Value
FH crosscourt	40%	−0.2	−0.3	−4.1	−4.6±4.4
FH through the middle	37%	−3.5	−1.1	−1.4	−5.9±2.8
FH down the line	23%	−1.8	±0.0	+1.0	−0.7±4.6

Lean FH down the line: +3.5±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (95 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mark	Value
BH through the middle	40%	−2.9	−0.8	−1.5	−5.3±2.4
BH crosscourt	24%	+1.0	−2.5	+0.5	−1.0±3.2
BH down the line	24%	−0.2	−2.3	−0.8	−3.3±4.5
BH slice down the line	6%	−9.3	+0.6	+1.5	−7.3±3.5
FH inside-in	5%	+0.6	+0.7	−4.1	−2.9±3.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (95 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Mark Philippoussis returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Gilles	Value
FH through the middle	51%	+4.3	−2.7	−1.2	+0.4±2.6
FH down the line	30%	+1.7	−4.1	−1.7	−4.1±4.3
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−5.3	+2.1	+2.3±4.4
FH slice through the middle	3%	−4.2	+0.8	−1.9	−5.3±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.1±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (386 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Gilles	Value
BH slice through the middle	32%	−4.2	±0.0	+0.8	−3.4±2.3
BH through the middle	21%	+6.4	−3.4	+1.1	+4.1±2.8
BH slice crosscourt	21%	+0.5	+1.5	−0.6	+1.4±2.9
BH crosscourt	10%	+8.8	−3.2	+4.1	+9.7±3.6
BH down the line	9%	+4.2	−4.8	+3.4	+2.8±4.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +8.9±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (480 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Gilles	Value
FH through the middle	39%	−3.5	−1.3	+2.3	−2.4±2.9
FH down the line	30%	−1.8	−2.1	+1.0	−2.8±4.6
FH crosscourt	25%	−0.2	±0.0	+2.0	+1.8±4.1
BH through the middle	6%	+0.1	−0.9	−0.6	−1.4±1.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.2±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (129 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Gilles	Value
BH slice crosscourt	28%	−4.0	+3.0	−2.2	−3.3±2.4
BH through the middle	22%	−2.9	+0.6	−0.6	−2.9±2.4
BH crosscourt	17%	+1.0	+0.2	−1.0	+0.3±3.3
BH slice through the middle	15%	−11.3	+0.7	−1.7	−12.3±2.4
BH slice down the line	7%	−9.3	+0.9	−0.8	−9.2±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.5±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (405 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.

Gilles Muller

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	+3.1±3.9	−0.3	+3.4
BH slice to the middle · return	+0.4±2.4	+1.3	−0.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.3±3.3	−1.2	+0.8
FH to their backhand · rally	−0.7±3.0	−0.6	−0.1
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−0.9±3.7	−0.7	−0.2
FH to their forehand · return	−1.0±4.5	−0.3	−0.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	−4.3±4.3	−6.4	+2.1
BH to their forehand · rally	−4.0±4.4	−2.8	−1.2
FH to their backhand · return	−3.7±3.7	±0.0	−3.6
BH to their backhand · return	−3.6±3.0	−1.7	−1.9
FH to their forehand · rally	−3.4±3.3	−4.9	+1.5

Mark Philippoussis

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+2.8±3.6	+1.0	+1.8
FH to their backhand · return +1	+1.6±4.0	−0.3	+1.9
BH to their forehand · return +1	+1.1±5.0	−4.9	+6.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+0.6±4.0	−1.1	+1.8
FH to their backhand · rally	+0.5±3.0	−1.6	+2.1
FH to their forehand · rally	−0.5±3.3	−1.3	+0.8

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	−4.3±4.4	−5.0	+0.7
FH to the middle · rally	−3.2±2.6	−2.6	−0.5
BH to the middle · return	−3.0±2.2	−2.3	−0.7
FH to their forehand · return +1	−2.7±4.2	−1.4	−1.2
BH to their forehand · return	−2.6±4.5	−4.6	+1.9

Against Mark Philippoussis-like opponents

Gilles Muller v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	67.0%	26.9%
Players most similar to Mark Philippoussis	2	61.7%	26.8%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Roger Federer, Mario Ancic, Tim Henman, Pete Sampras, Todd Martin, Boris Becker, Malivai Washington, Brad Gilbert. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.