Game plan

Maja Chwalinska v Olga Danilovic

Every number combines what Maja Chwalinska does well with what Olga Danilovic 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 80%90%: 54%–94% · best of 5: 86%

Serve points won 58.4% / 52.0% Maja / Olga · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 80%serve 58.1% / 51.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Olga Danilovic's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +4.1 on serve, −1.7 on return vs expectation (151 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	Maja	Olga
Direction choice	−0.08 ±0.06 better than 40%	−0.03 ±0.07 better than 49%
Shot selection	−0.52 ±0.28 better than 11%	+0.44 ±0.13 better than 92%
Execution	+2.12 ±0.53 better than 99%	−1.00 ±0.59 better than 18%
Points left on the table	2.93 ±0.10 lower than 14%	2.96 ±0.16 lower than 12%

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: Maja Chwalinska +1.86, Olga Danilovic −0.81. 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.

Maja Chwalinska serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Maja wins	v Olga	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	26%	62%	66%	61.4%±9.0	26%
Body	28%	55%	65%	62.7%±9.6	13% ▼
T	46%	65%	72%	69.5%±8.0	61% ▲

Optimal v Olga Danilovic: +0.5±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Maja wins	v Olga	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	53%	60%	72%	67.5%±7.5	52%
Body	22%	53%	51%	47.4%±11.1	7% ▼
T	26%	67%	71%	73.1%±8.7	41% ▲

Optimal v Olga Danilovic: +1.5±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +8.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Olga Danilovic serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Olga wins	v Maja	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	26%	64%	58%	56.0%±8.8	29% ▲
Body	29%	54%	57%	53.1%±9.8	14% ▼
T	45%	64%	62%	57.8%±9.3	57% ▲

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +0.1±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Olga wins	v Maja	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	58%	61%	59%	54.1%±9.4	58%
Body	18%	57%	53%	53.3%±10.4	3% ▼
T	23%	73%	58%	67.3%±9.3	39% ▲

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +0.8±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +10.2 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.

Maja Chwalinska returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Olga	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	+3.2	−2.8	+4.5±2.9
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.3	+3.3	−1.6	+7.0±4.2
FH slice through the middle	17%	−6.7	+1.6	+1.3	−3.9±2.4
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	+1.1	+0.5	+3.1±4.3
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−6.6	+1.5	+0.5	−4.6±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.3±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (111 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Olga	Value
BH through the middle	43%	+6.0	+1.2	+0.2	+7.3±2.4
BH crosscourt	33%	+7.7	+2.4	−3.8	+6.4±3.4
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	+3.6	+1.4	+7.1±4.2
BH slice through the middle	3%	−6.2	−0.5	−0.3	−7.1±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	+0.1	−3.1	−7.1±2.3

Lean BH through the middle: +1.6±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (236 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Olga	Value
BH through the middle	31%	−2.6	+1.6	+0.3	−0.7±2.6
BH crosscourt	29%	+1.5	±0.0	−1.0	+0.5±3.5
FH through the middle	18%	−2.7	−1.1	−1.7	−5.5±2.3
BH down the line	11%	−0.5	−1.3	−2.4	−4.2±4.6
FH inside-in	5%	+0.7	+0.5	−4.9	−3.6±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (110 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Olga Danilovic returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
FH through the middle	46%	+4.2	+0.6	+0.2	+4.9±2.9
FH crosscourt	23%	+5.3	+2.3	+3.2	+10.8±4.3
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	−3.6	+2.7	+0.6±4.7
FH slice through the middle	8%	−6.7	−1.6	−1.2	−9.6±2.1
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	−2.0	±0.0	−8.6±1.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +7.5±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (304 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
BH through the middle	39%	+6.0	−1.7	+2.1	+6.4±2.5
BH crosscourt	25%	+7.7	−1.6	+2.7	+8.9±3.5
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−1.3	+1.3	+2.3±4.6
BH slice through the middle	10%	−6.2	−2.3	+0.6	−7.9±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	7%	−4.2	−1.4	±0.0	−5.6±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.3±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (485 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
FH crosscourt	42%	+0.5	−0.2	−1.4	−1.1±4.3
FH through the middle	38%	−3.2	−0.5	−1.2	−4.8±3.0
FH down the line	20%	−0.6	−2.5	+0.4	−2.7±4.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.7±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (74 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Maja	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.6	+0.7	+1.4	−0.5±2.6
BH crosscourt	36%	+1.5	+0.9	−1.4	+0.9±3.3
BH down the line	9%	−0.5	−6.6	−0.1	−7.2±5.2
FH inside-in	4%	+0.7	+0.9	−1.4	+0.3±4.1
FH through the middle	3%	−2.7	+0.7	−1.2	−3.2±2.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (294 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 forehand · serve +1	+7.5±6.2	+4.6	+2.9
FH to their forehand · rally	+6.3±3.7	+4.1	+2.2
BH to their forehand · return	+5.9±5.3	+6.5	−0.6
FH to their backhand · return +1	+5.9±4.9	+5.3	+0.5
BH to the middle · return	+5.6±2.7	+3.5	+2.1
BH to their forehand · rally	+5.6±4.3	+3.2	+2.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.9±4.3	−1.9	+1.0
FH to their forehand · return +1	±0.0±5.8	−1.9	+1.9
FH to the middle · return	+0.3±3.1	+2.3	−2.0
BH to their backhand · return	+0.5±4.4	+4.1	−3.5
FH to the middle · return +1	+0.9±3.7	±0.0	+0.9

Olga Danilovic

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return +1	+6.4±6.4	+2.6	+3.8
FH to their backhand · return	+5.9±5.3	+2.3	+3.6
BH to the middle · return	+4.1±2.6	+0.4	+3.8
FH to the middle · serve +1	+3.2±3.5	+1.5	+1.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+2.9±4.0	+1.0	+1.9
BH to their forehand · return	+1.8±5.0	+1.6	+0.2

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−4.7±6.0	+0.7	−5.3
BH to their backhand · rally	−3.7±3.7	−2.2	−1.4
FH to the middle · rally	−3.1±2.9	−0.8	−2.3
BH to their backhand · return	−2.9±4.7	−6.6	+3.7
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−2.4±5.3	−5.3	+3.0

Against Olga Danilovic-like opponents

Maja Chwalinska v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	58.7%	49.2%
Players most similar to Olga Danilovic	1	62.8%	43.8%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alexandra Eala, Diana Shnaider, Marta Kostyuk, Leylah Fernandez, Sara Bejlek, Kaja Juvan, Olivia Gadecki, Xiyu Wang, Bernarda Pera, Misaki Doi. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.