Game plan

Maja Chwalinska v Nicole Gibbs

Every number combines what Maja Chwalinska does well with what Nicole Gibbs allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Maja Chwalinska wins, best of 3 99%90%: 88%–100% · best of 5: 100%

Serve points won 61.3% / 45.0% Maja / Nicole · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 99%serve 61.3% / 45.0%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Maja Chwalinska's record against Nicole Gibbs'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	Maja	Nicole
Direction choice	−0.08 ±0.06 better than 40%	−0.12 ±0.17 better than 33%
Shot selection	−0.52 ±0.28 better than 11%	−0.43 ±0.33 better than 14%
Execution	+2.12 ±0.53 better than 99%	−1.58 ±0.92 better 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.

Maja Chwalinska serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Maja wins	v Nicole	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	26%	62%	63%	58.6%±12.2	26%
Body	28%	55%	62%	60.4%±13.6	13% ▼
T	46%	65%	79%	77.1%±9.1	61% ▲

Optimal v Nicole Gibbs: +0.3±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +9.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Maja wins	v Nicole	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	53%	60%	65%	59.7%±11.0	52%
Body	22%	53%	60%	56.1%±15.6	7% ▼
T	26%	67%	67%	69.6%±11.3	41% ▲

Optimal v Nicole Gibbs: +1.0±1.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +8.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Nicole Gibbs serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Nicole wins	v Maja	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	68%	58%	59.5%±10.7	56% ▲
Body	24%	63%	57%	62.0%±12.0	23%
T	36%	63%	62%	56.6%±12.6	21% ▼

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +0.5±1.2 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	Nicole wins	v Maja	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	30%	63%	59%	55.4%±13.4	30%
Body	33%	46%	53%	42.9%±12.0	18% ▼
T	37%	64%	58%	57.8%±11.1	52% ▲

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +1.0±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.6 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.

Maja Chwalinska returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nicole	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	+3.2	+1.6	+9.0±3.2
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.3	+3.3	+2.6	+11.2±4.1
FH slice through the middle	17%	−6.7	+1.6	±0.0	−5.2±1.6
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	+1.1	+3.9	+6.5±4.4
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−6.6	+1.5	±0.0	−5.2±1.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.5±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (111 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nicole	Value
BH through the middle	43%	+6.0	+1.2	−1.7	+5.5±2.9
BH crosscourt	33%	+7.7	+2.4	+1.3	+11.4±3.3
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	+3.6	+0.5	+6.2±4.7
BH slice through the middle	3%	−6.2	−0.5	−0.1	−6.8±1.7
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	+0.1	±0.0	−4.1±1.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (236 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Nicole	Value
BH through the middle	31%	−2.6	+1.6	+0.7	−0.4±2.8
BH crosscourt	29%	+1.5	±0.0	+0.9	+2.4±3.3
FH through the middle	18%	−2.7	−1.1	−0.5	−4.4±2.5
BH down the line	11%	−0.5	−1.3	−2.2	−4.0±4.7
FH inside-in	5%	+0.7	+0.5	+0.8	+2.0±3.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (110 returns charted)

Nicole Gibbs returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	+0.5	+0.2	+4.8±3.1
FH slice through the middle	24%	−6.7	+0.8	−1.2	−7.1±2.0
FH down the line	20%	+1.5	±0.0	+3.2	+4.7±4.4
FH crosscourt	9%	+5.3	−0.5	+2.7	+7.5±3.7
FH slice down the line	6%	−10.5	−0.9	±0.0	−11.4±1.4

Lean FH through the middle: +3.7±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (79 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
BH through the middle	34%	+6.0	+1.2	+2.1	+9.3±2.7
BH crosscourt	23%	+7.7	+0.6	+1.3	+9.6±3.4
BH slice through the middle	18%	−6.2	−0.5	+0.6	−6.2±1.9
BH slice crosscourt	10%	−4.2	+0.4	±0.0	−3.7±1.4
BH down the line	8%	+2.2	−0.6	+2.7	+4.3±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +6.1±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (73 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.6	−0.5	+1.4	−1.7±2.8
BH crosscourt	38%	+1.5	−0.6	−0.1	+0.7±3.6
BH down the line	15%	−0.5	−0.6	−1.4	−2.6±4.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (66 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 on clay. Each player's clay record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Maja Chwalinska

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · rally	+8.5±4.1	+4.8	+3.6
FH to the middle · rally	+2.7±3.3	+1.0	+1.7
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.6±4.2	+4.1	−1.5
FH to their backhand · rally	+2.4±4.5	+1.6	+0.9
BH to their backhand · return	+2.3±4.6	+4.1	−1.7
FH to the middle · return	+1.1±3.8	+2.3	−1.1

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−0.6±6.1	+2.0	−2.6
BH to the middle · rally	+0.1±3.2	+2.8	−2.8
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+0.1±5.4	+2.4	−2.3
BH to the middle · return	+0.2±3.6	+3.5	−3.3
FH to the middle · return	+1.1±3.8	+2.3	−1.1

Nicole Gibbs

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	+3.7±4.2	+4.5	−0.8
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+3.4±5.4	+0.4	+3.0
BH to the middle · return	+2.4±3.5	−1.4	+3.8
BH to the middle · rally	+2.0±3.1	+1.7	+0.3
BH to the middle · serve +1	+1.9±3.8	+1.7	+0.2
BH to their backhand · rally	+1.8±4.0	+3.3	−1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	−8.5±4.6	−9.2	+0.7
FH to the middle · rally	−0.8±3.4	+1.5	−2.3
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.8±5.4	−2.7	+1.9
BH to their backhand · return	+1.5±5.0	−2.2	+3.7
BH to their backhand · rally	+1.8±4.0	+3.3	−1.4

Against Nicole Gibbs-like opponents

Maja Chwalinska v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	58.7%	49.2%