Game plan
Jan Lennard Struff v Mario Ancic
Every number combines what Jan Lennard Struff does well with what Mario Ancic 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. At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Jan Lennard Struff's record against Mario Ancic'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 | Jan | Mario |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.02 ±0.10 better than 52% | −0.19 ±0.20 better than 15% |
| Shot selection | +0.40 ±0.15 better than 86% | +0.43 ±0.22 better than 88% |
| Execution | −0.74 ±0.60 better than 35% | −1.93 ±0.54 better than 4% |
| Points left on the table | 2.93 ±0.18 lower than 24% | 3.42 ±0.55 lower than 9% |
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.
Jan Lennard Struff serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Jan wins | v Mario | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 47% | 78% | 82% | 85.1%±5.1 | 60% ▲ |
| Body | 7% | 59% | 64% | 59.9%±12.4 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 46% | 78% | 82% | 84.0%±5.6 | 40% ▼ |
Optimal v Mario Ancic: +0.8±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Jan wins | v Mario | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 77% | 78% | 81.2%±5.7 | 67% ▲ |
| Body | 7% | 60% | 63% | 59.6%±14.7 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 40% | 75% | 72% | 75.7%±7.2 | 33% ▼ |
Optimal v Mario Ancic: +0.9±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Mario Ancic serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Mario wins | v Jan | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 47% | 75% | 77% | 79.5%±5.7 | 60% ▲ |
| Body | 10% | 71% | 65% | 72.3%±10.9 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 44% | 70% | 79% | 75.4%±6.5 | 40% ▼ |
Optimal v Jan Lennard Struff: +0.6±0.8 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.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Mario wins | v Jan | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 44% | 69% | 77% | 73.6%±6.8 | 44% |
| Body | 13% | 64% | 62% | 63.6%±11.8 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 74% | 75% | 77.7%±6.6 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Jan Lennard Struff: +0.8±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.6 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.
Jan Lennard Struff returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mario | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 49% | +4.3 | −0.2 | −2.0 | +2.1±2.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 29% | +5.5 | −0.1 | −2.9 | +2.5±4.0 |
| FH down the line | 12% | +1.7 | −1.7 | −1.1 | −1.1±4.5 |
| FH slice through the middle | 7% | −4.2 | +0.6 | +0.7 | −2.9±2.2 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 2% | −4.3 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | −4.6±1.9 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +1.2±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (558 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mario | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 53% | +6.4 | +2.2 | −2.4 | +6.2±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 31% | +8.8 | −0.1 | −3.8 | +4.9±3.3 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +4.2 | −2.6 | +1.9 | +3.5±4.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 4% | −4.2 | −2.1 | +0.2 | −6.1±2.4 |
| BH slice down the line | 2% | −8.4 | −1.8 | +0.6 | −9.6±2.8 |
Lean BH through the middle: +1.6±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (612 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mario | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 52% | −3.5 | −0.8 | +0.5 | −3.7±2.8 |
| FH crosscourt | 38% | −0.2 | +0.4 | +0.4 | +0.5±3.9 |
| FH down the line | 9% | −1.8 | −2.7 | −0.5 | −5.0±4.1 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +2.7±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (162 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mario | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 46% | −2.9 | −0.2 | −0.6 | −3.7±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 41% | +1.0 | +0.6 | +0.2 | +1.8±3.0 |
| BH down the line | 12% | −0.2 | +6.6 | +0.7 | +7.1±4.7 |
Lean BH down the line: +7.2±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (499 returns charted)
Mario Ancic returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Jan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | +4.3 | +3.0 | +0.1 | +7.4±2.7 |
| FH down the line | 37% | +1.7 | −1.0 | +0.4 | +1.1±4.5 |
| FH crosscourt | 15% | +5.5 | −2.8 | −0.1 | +2.7±4.1 |
| FH slice down the line | 4% | −4.3 | +0.5 | +0.3 | −3.5±2.5 |
Lean FH through the middle: +3.5±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (131 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Jan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 33% | +8.8 | +2.7 | −2.1 | +9.4±3.4 |
| BH through the middle | 28% | +6.4 | −1.5 | −0.4 | +4.5±2.5 |
| BH down the line | 19% | +4.2 | −3.2 | −2.7 | −1.7±4.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 10% | −4.2 | −0.9 | +0.8 | −4.4±2.2 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | +0.5 | −2.0 | −2.8 | −4.3±2.7 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +6.6±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (156 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Jan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 52% | −3.5 | +1.2 | +0.9 | −1.4±2.5 |
| FH down the line | 32% | −1.8 | −2.4 | −0.6 | −4.8±4.3 |
| FH crosscourt | 17% | −0.2 | −0.6 | −1.4 | −2.2±3.6 |
Lean FH through the middle: +1.2±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (60 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Jan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 50% | −2.9 | −2.1 | +0.9 | −4.1±2.2 |
| BH crosscourt | 42% | +1.0 | −1.7 | +1.1 | +0.5±3.0 |
| BH down the line | 8% | −0.2 | ±0.0 | −4.4 | −4.7±4.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +2.7±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (106 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.
Jan Lennard Struff
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +4.4±5.7 | −2.0 | +6.4 |
| BH slice to their backhand · rally | +3.2±3.7 | +0.8 | +2.4 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +1.9±4.2 | −2.5 | +4.4 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +1.8±5.9 | −0.2 | +2.0 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +1.7±5.1 | +1.3 | +0.3 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +0.7±4.1 | −1.5 | +2.2 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to the middle · rally | −3.4±3.3 | −3.2 | −0.2 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −3.2±6.3 | −2.9 | −0.3 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −2.3±5.1 | −1.8 | −0.6 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −1.9±5.0 | +1.5 | −3.4 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.3±4.0 | −0.7 | −0.6 |
Mario Ancic
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · rally | +6.4±5.0 | +2.1 | +4.3 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +3.7±5.3 | +0.9 | +2.9 |
| FH to the middle · return | +2.8±4.0 | +2.8 | ±0.0 |
| FH to their backhand · return | ±0.0±6.1 | −2.2 | +2.2 |
| BH to the middle · rally | −2.3±3.3 | −0.5 | −1.7 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −2.7±5.1 | −1.4 | −1.3 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to the middle · return | −6.4±3.5 | −8.0 | +1.6 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −5.1±4.2 | −3.1 | −2.0 |
| FH to the middle · rally | −3.5±3.7 | −2.2 | −1.3 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −3.4±5.2 | +0.2 | −3.6 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −2.7±5.1 | −1.4 | −1.3 |
Against Mario Ancic-like opponents
| Jan Lennard Struff v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 64.8% | 32.9% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Tomas Berdych, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Nicolas Kiefer, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, Brad Gilbert. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.