Game plan

Johanna Larsson v Anna Lena Friedsam

Every number combines what Johanna Larsson does well with what Anna Lena Friedsam allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Johanna Larsson wins, best of 3 21%90%: 4%–54% · best of 5: 15%

Serve points won 54.0% / 60.3% Johanna / Anna · tour 56.3%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 21%serve 54.0% / 60.3%

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. At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Johanna Larsson's record against Anna Lena Friedsam'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	Johanna	Anna
Direction choice	−0.20 ±0.22 better than 16%	±0.00 ±0.15 better than 52%
Shot selection	−0.07 ±0.27 better than 38%	−0.47 ±0.33 better than 12%
Execution	−0.86 ±0.93 better than 22%	−0.06 ±1.00 better 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.

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.

Johanna Larsson serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Johanna wins	v Anna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	59%	60%	52.6%±11.9	59% ▲
Body	17%	54%	60%	56.8%±14.5	2% ▼
T	39%	60%	64%	56.3%±11.9	39%

Optimal v Anna Lena Friedsam: +0.4±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +2.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Johanna wins	v Anna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	54%	71%	60.4%±11.0	52%
Body	17%	53%	64%	61.8%±14.6	1% ▼
T	32%	60%	70%	65.5%±12.4	47% ▲

Optimal v Anna Lena Friedsam: +0.7±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Anna Lena Friedsam serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Anna wins	v Johanna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	37%	62%	72%	67.8%±10.5	37%
Body	29%	62%	68%	71.9%±11.9	14% ▼
T	34%	58%	69%	59.2%±11.9	49% ▲

Optimal v Johanna Larsson: +0.2±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +5.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Anna wins	v Johanna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	49%	69%	65%	69.0%±10.2	61% ▲
Body	20%	51%	58%	53.0%±14.2	5% ▼
T	31%	63%	70%	68.9%±11.0	34% ▲

Optimal v Johanna Larsson: +1.0±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.2 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.

Johanna Larsson returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anna	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	−1.0	+0.8	+4.0±3.2
FH crosscourt	29%	+5.3	+1.4	+1.0	+7.8±4.2
FH slice through the middle	18%	−6.7	−0.6	+0.5	−6.9±2.3
FH down the line	7%	+1.5	+1.8	−2.3	+1.1±4.0
FH slice crosscourt	6%	−6.6	−1.0	+0.2	−7.5±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.5±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (101 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anna	Value
BH through the middle	55%	+6.0	+0.1	+2.0	+8.2±2.8
BH crosscourt	27%	+7.7	−0.8	+1.8	+8.7±3.6
BH down the line	11%	+2.2	−0.5	−1.6	+0.1±4.1
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	+0.4	−0.3	−6.2±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.3±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (93 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Anna	Value
BH through the middle	29%	−2.6	+1.0	+0.6	−1.0±2.5
FH through the middle	29%	−2.7	+0.5	+1.5	−0.6±2.4
BH crosscourt	26%	+1.5	+0.5	−0.7	+1.4±3.3
FH inside-out	17%	+1.4	+1.6	−0.4	+2.5±3.2

Anna Lena Friedsam returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Johanna	Value
FH through the middle	48%	+4.2	−1.9	+0.7	+2.9±3.2
FH crosscourt	18%	+5.3	+3.5	−1.6	+7.2±4.0
FH slice through the middle	15%	−6.7	+0.1	+0.9	−5.8±2.1
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	−2.7	+0.1	−1.0±4.1
FH slice down the line	5%	−10.5	+0.6	±0.0	−9.9±1.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.1±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (119 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Johanna	Value
BH through the middle	39%	+6.0	+1.7	+0.1	+7.9±2.9
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	−1.5	+2.3	+8.4±3.7
BH slice through the middle	19%	−6.2	−0.7	+0.5	−6.4±2.0
BH down the line	7%	+2.2	−1.0	±0.0	+1.2±4.0
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.2	−0.4	±0.0	−4.6±1.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.3±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (157 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Johanna	Value
FH through the middle	56%	−3.2	−4.0	+0.4	−6.8±2.9
FH crosscourt	44%	+0.5	−1.2	−0.9	−1.5±3.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.0±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (41 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Johanna	Value
BH crosscourt	52%	+1.5	+0.4	−1.1	+0.8±3.7
BH through the middle	33%	−2.6	−0.7	+0.5	−2.8±2.7
BH down the line	15%	−0.5	−3.0	+0.5	−3.0±3.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (79 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.

Johanna Larsson

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	+3.6±2.6	+1.4	+2.2
FH to their backhand · rally	+3.1±4.0	−0.7	+3.7
BH to the middle · rally	+0.4±2.3	−0.3	+0.7
FH to the middle · return	−0.3±2.9	−1.4	+1.2
FH to the middle · rally	−1.1±2.5	−1.8	+0.7
FH to their forehand · rally	−1.9±3.1	−0.9	−1.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · rally	−3.4±3.2	−1.4	−2.0
FH to their forehand · rally	−1.9±3.1	−0.9	−1.0
FH to the middle · rally	−1.1±2.5	−1.8	+0.7
FH to the middle · return	−0.3±2.9	−1.4	+1.2
BH to the middle · rally	+0.4±2.3	−0.3	+0.7

Anna Lena Friedsam

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	+6.4±4.8	+2.4	+4.0
FH to their forehand · rally	+4.0±3.3	+1.1	+2.9
BH to the middle · rally	+2.6±2.4	+0.9	+1.7
BH to their backhand · rally	+1.1±3.0	+1.9	−0.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−0.1±4.2	−2.1	+1.9
BH to the middle · return	−0.3±2.7	−0.6	+0.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−4.4±4.4	−5.1	+0.7
FH to the middle · return	−2.3±3.0	−3.3	+1.0
FH to the middle · rally	−2.0±2.5	−1.4	−0.6
FH to their backhand · rally	−1.0±3.8	−0.8	−0.1
BH to their backhand · return	−0.7±3.5	−1.5	+0.7

Against Anna Lena Friedsam-like opponents

Johanna Larsson v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	49.2%	35.7%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Diana Shnaider, Jasmine Paolini, Jil Teichmann, Emma Raducanu, Varvara Gracheva, Yue Yuan, Olivia Gadecki, Ana Bogdan, Andrea Petkovic, Elena Vesnina. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.