Game plan

Marie Bouzkova v Jil Teichmann

Every number combines what Marie Bouzkova does well with what Jil Teichmann allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Marie Bouzkova wins, best of 3 57%90%: 29%–82% · best of 5: 59%

Serve points won 58.0% / 56.6% Marie / Jil · tour 56.3%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 53%serve 57.0% / 56.5%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Marie Bouzkova's record against Jil Teichmann's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +7.9 on serve, −0.6 on return vs expectation (511 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	Marie	Jil
Direction choice	−0.04 ±0.07 better than 48%	−0.19 ±0.09 better than 18%
Shot selection	+0.09 ±0.12 better than 54%	+0.14 ±0.14 better than 60%
Execution	+0.73 ±0.39 better than 86%	−0.19 ±0.42 better than 51%
Points left on the table	2.65 ±0.08 lower than 42%	3.14 ±0.15 lower than 6%

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: Marie Bouzkova +0.94, Jil Teichmann +1.83. 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.

Marie Bouzkova serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Marie wins	v Jil	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	53%	62%	65%	61.1%±5.4	53%
Body	18%	50%	57%	49.2%±7.8	3% ▼
T	29%	65%	67%	64.5%±6.9	44% ▲

Optimal v Jil Teichmann: +1.0±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Marie wins	v Jil	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	36%	61%	65%	60.5%±6.7	33% ▼
Body	21%	53%	60%	56.6%±7.6	20% ▼
T	42%	62%	60%	57.8%±6.3	47% ▲

Optimal v Jil Teichmann: ±0.0±0.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Jil Teichmann serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Jil wins	v Marie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	31%	61%	69%	63.4%±6.4	32% ▲
Body	25%	56%	62%	60.2%±7.3	19% ▼
T	44%	61%	70%	63.5%±6.5	49% ▲

Optimal v Marie Bouzkova: ±0.0±0.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +0.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Jil wins	v Marie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	52%	64%	70%	68.4%±6.0	56% ▲
Body	23%	57%	60%	61.3%±7.8	8% ▼
T	24%	66%	68%	69.9%±6.8	36% ▲

Optimal v Marie Bouzkova: +0.7±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.7 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.

Marie Bouzkova returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jil	Value
FH through the middle	46%	+4.2	+1.8	+1.4	+7.3±2.2
FH crosscourt	23%	+5.3	±0.0	+2.1	+7.5±3.8
FH down the line	16%	+1.5	+2.7	−3.9	+0.3±4.5
FH slice through the middle	10%	−6.7	+0.7	−1.1	−7.1±2.5
FH slice crosscourt	2%	−6.6	+0.8	+0.3	−5.6±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.4±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (715 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jil	Value
BH through the middle	54%	+6.0	+2.7	+0.3	+9.0±2.1
BH crosscourt	27%	+7.7	+1.5	+3.3	+12.5±3.4
BH down the line	11%	+2.2	+0.2	−1.4	+1.0±4.5
BH slice through the middle	5%	−6.2	−1.0	+0.3	−6.9±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	−0.2	−0.1	−4.4±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.8±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (437 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jil	Value
FH through the middle	47%	−3.2	+2.2	+2.7	+1.7±2.9
FH crosscourt	34%	+0.5	−2.4	+0.6	−1.2±4.3
FH down the line	19%	−0.6	+0.2	−2.3	−2.8±5.1

Lean FH through the middle: +1.8±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (153 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jil	Value
BH through the middle	41%	−2.6	+2.6	+2.0	+2.0±2.4
BH crosscourt	36%	+1.5	+0.7	−2.8	−0.6±3.3
BH down the line	23%	−0.5	+2.6	+0.3	+2.4±5.2

Lean BH down the line: +1.2±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (308 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Jil Teichmann returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marie	Value
FH through the middle	50%	+4.2	+1.2	+1.9	+7.3±2.2
FH crosscourt	27%	+5.3	+2.6	−0.3	+7.7±3.9
FH down the line	13%	+1.5	−0.2	−0.9	+0.4±4.4
FH slice through the middle	6%	−6.7	−0.3	+3.0	−4.0±2.5
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	+1.6	−1.5	−6.4±2.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (400 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marie	Value
BH through the middle	55%	+6.0	±0.0	+1.9	+7.9±1.9
BH crosscourt	22%	+7.7	+1.1	+2.8	+11.6±3.4
BH down the line	13%	+2.2	−0.2	+0.9	+2.9±4.3
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−0.9	+0.6	−6.5±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	2%	−4.2	−0.8	−1.9	−6.8±2.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.3±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (570 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marie	Value
FH through the middle	44%	−3.2	−2.1	+1.7	−3.6±2.9
FH crosscourt	41%	+0.5	−1.4	+0.8	±0.0±4.5
FH down the line	16%	−0.6	+1.3	−1.2	−0.5±4.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.6±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (116 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marie	Value
BH through the middle	39%	−2.6	−0.4	+0.7	−2.3±2.5
BH crosscourt	36%	+1.5	−0.4	+1.6	+2.6±3.5
FH inside-in	9%	+0.7	+2.2	+0.8	+3.8±4.5
FH through the middle	8%	−2.7	+1.2	+1.7	+0.2±2.4
BH down the line	6%	−0.5	−2.2	+0.9	−1.9±4.6

Lean FH inside-in: +3.4±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (244 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.

Marie Bouzkova

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+5.6±4.0	+2.8	+2.8
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.4±3.0	+2.4	+2.0
FH to their backhand · return	+4.3±3.5	+2.7	+1.6
FH to the middle · return	+3.8±1.8	+2.1	+1.8
BH to the middle · serve +1	+3.6±2.0	+2.6	+1.1
BH to the middle · return	+2.9±1.6	+1.6	+1.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−6.1±2.7	−1.0	−5.1
FH to their forehand · return	−4.1±3.6	+0.2	−4.2
FH to their backhand · rally	−1.9±2.0	−1.3	−0.6
FH to their forehand · return +1	−1.4±3.3	−1.4	±0.0
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−1.1±2.9	−0.9	−0.2

Jil Teichmann

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return	+5.7±3.6	+3.1	+2.5
FH to their forehand · return +1	+5.1±3.4	+3.0	+2.1
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.8±3.9	+1.3	+3.5
BH to their forehand · rally	+4.8±2.7	+1.3	+3.4
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.5±3.0	+3.1	+1.4
FH to their backhand · return +1	+3.9±3.3	+2.0	+1.9

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−4.6±2.8	−4.0	−0.7
FH to their forehand · rally	−3.9±2.1	−4.9	+1.0
BH to their backhand · return	−2.3±3.0	−3.4	+1.1
FH to their forehand · return	−0.9±3.6	+0.5	−1.4
BH slice to the middle · rally	−0.5±2.0	−0.7	+0.1

Against Jil Teichmann-like opponents

Marie Bouzkova v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	55.1%	39.8%
Players most similar to Jil Teichmann	3	61.9%	40.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Elina Svitolina, Suzan Lamens, Marta Kostyuk, Jasmine Paolini, Sara Bejlek, Kaja Juvan, Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, Beatriz Haddad Maia, Anna Lena Friedsam, Johanna Larsson. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.