RallyIQ

Game plan

Marcos Giron v Brandon Nakashima

Every number combines what Marcos Giron does well with what Brandon Nakashima allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Marcos Giron wins, best of 3 64%90%: 26%–91% · best of 5: 67%
Serve points won 63.7% / 60.9% Marcos / Brandon · tour 61.5%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 64%serve 63.5% / 60.7%

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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Marcos Giron's record against Brandon Nakashima's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +1.0 on serve, −0.8 on return vs expectation (613 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

CareerMarcosBrandon
Direction choice−0.12 ±0.14
better than 26%
−0.01 ±0.07
better than 54%
Shot selection−0.29 ±0.18
better than 24%
−0.11 ±0.14
better than 38%
Execution+0.02 ±0.52
better than 69%
+0.79 ±0.43
better than 91%
Points left on the table2.66 ±0.24
lower than 43%
2.50 ±0.10
lower than 60%

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: Marcos Giron +0.67, Brandon Nakashima +1.17. 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.

Marcos Giron serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMarcos winsv BrandonMatchupOptimal
Wide50%65%74%67.1%±4.941% ▼
Body4%62%66%65.4%±11.30% ▼
T46%78%79%81.3%±4.359% ▲

Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +0.3±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +7.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMarcos winsv BrandonMatchupOptimal
Wide55%72%75%74.7%±5.048% ▼
Body6%65%67%68.9%±10.30% ▼
T39%71%74%73.6%±5.052% ▲

Optimal v Brandon Nakashima: +0.4±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +0.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Brandon Nakashima serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowBrandon winsv MarcosMatchupOptimal
Wide52%73%77%77.1%±4.344% ▼
Body5%64%68%68.5%±10.50% ▼
T43%78%79%81.2%±4.156% ▲

Optimal v Marcos Giron: +0.6±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowBrandon winsv MarcosMatchupOptimal
Wide54%72%74%73.8%±4.767% ▲
Body9%69%63%69.2%±10.30% ▼
T37%72%71%71.0%±5.433% ▼

Optimal v Marcos Giron: +0.5±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.5 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.

Marcos Giron returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BrandonValue
FH through the middle52%+4.3+0.6+1.7+6.5±2.2
FH crosscourt20%+5.5+0.3+3.4+9.2±4.0
FH down the line14%+1.7−1.2−1.2−0.7±4.2
FH slice through the middle9%−4.2+1.0−0.4−3.6±2.3
FH slice crosscourt2%−4.3−0.5+0.7−4.1±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.6±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (463 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BrandonValue
BH through the middle34%+6.4+1.8−0.3+7.9±2.2
BH slice through the middle24%−4.2+1.5+0.4−2.3±2.3
BH crosscourt18%+8.8+1.1+0.4+10.3±3.1
BH slice crosscourt12%+0.5−1.7+2.1+0.9±3.0
BH slice down the line7%−8.4−1.9−0.5−10.8±3.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +6.8±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (501 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BrandonValue
FH through the middle59%−3.5+0.9−1.0−3.5±2.6
FH crosscourt28%−0.2−4.3+1.5−3.1±4.2
FH down the line13%−1.8+1.4+1.7+1.3±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: −0.3±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (97 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv BrandonValue
BH through the middle42%−2.9+1.9+2.3+1.3±2.0
BH crosscourt36%+1.0−0.4−0.2+0.5±2.7
BH down the line8%−0.2+2.3+1.4+3.5±4.7
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.0−0.5−0.4−5.0±1.9
BH slice through the middle3%−11.3−1.0−0.3−12.5±1.7

Lean BH down the line: +3.1±4.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (392 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Brandon Nakashima returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarcosValue
FH through the middle48%+4.3−1.1+4.1+7.3±2.2
FH down the line19%+1.7−1.5+2.0+2.2±4.1
FH slice through the middle14%−4.2+1.0−0.5−3.6±2.2
FH crosscourt11%+5.5+0.6+0.4+6.5±4.2
FH slice down the line4%−4.3+0.9±0.0−3.4±3.1

Lean FH through the middle: +3.4±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (771 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarcosValue
BH through the middle38%+6.4+0.2+2.9+9.5±2.2
BH crosscourt29%+8.8+1.2+0.5+10.5±3.2
BH slice through the middle12%−4.2+0.1−1.1−5.2±2.5
BH down the line10%+4.2−1.3+1.5+4.4±4.6
BH slice crosscourt8%+0.5−3.1−1.5−4.1±3.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (648 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarcosValue
FH through the middle62%−3.5−1.0+2.0−2.5±2.5
FH crosscourt21%−0.2+3.2+4.9+7.9±4.4
FH down the line17%−1.8−0.7+1.0−1.4±4.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.0±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarcosValue
BH through the middle50%−2.9−0.6+2.0−1.5±2.0
BH crosscourt34%+1.0+1.9+0.6+3.6±2.8
BH down the line11%−0.2+0.7+2.3+2.8±5.0
BH slice through the middle4%−11.3−1.2+0.7−11.8±1.9
BH slice crosscourt2%−4.0−0.1+1.4−2.7±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.3±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (387 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 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.

Marcos Giron

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1+7.0±5.0+0.1+6.9
BH to the middle · serve +1+6.2±3.2+3.7+2.5
BH to their backhand · return +1+4.4±4.0+3.0+1.4
FH to their forehand · return +1+4.3±5.3−1.3+5.5
BH to their backhand · return+4.1±3.7+2.5+1.6
FH to their backhand · return +1+3.7±4.9+2.9+0.8

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH slice to the middle · rally−6.3±3.9−4.5−1.8
FH to their backhand · rally−4.0±3.4−3.4−0.6
BH slice to their backhand · rally−3.3±3.4−3.9+0.6
BH slice to the middle · rally−3.2±3.0−1.8−1.4
FH to their backhand · return−2.1±4.8+1.0−3.1

Brandon Nakashima

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return +1+9.1±6.5+3.7+5.3
FH to their forehand · return+6.4±5.5+3.7+2.7
FH to the middle · return+5.5±3.1+0.7+4.7
FH to their forehand · return +1+5.3±5.2+3.7+1.6
FH to their backhand · return +1+4.5±4.8+2.9+1.6
BH to their backhand · serve +1+4.1±4.1+1.5+2.6

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · rally−7.8±5.2−8.0+0.1
BH to the middle · rally−5.3±2.5−0.6−4.8
BH slice to the middle · rally−3.3±2.9−1.8−1.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.9±4.2−1.4−1.5
FH to their backhand · return−2.8±4.7−3.7+0.9

Against Brandon Nakashima-like opponents

Marcos Giron vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–61.0%32.8%
Players most similar to Brandon Nakashima4 62.4%31.8%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Casper Ruud, Karen Khachanov, Jaume Munar, Roberto Bautista Agut, Pablo Carreno Busta, Taylor Fritz, Rinky Hijikata, Gregoire Barrere, Tennys Sandgren. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.