Game plan
Mark Philippoussis v Nicolas Mahut
Every number combines what Mark Philippoussis does well with what Nicolas Mahut allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Mark Philippoussis's record against Nicolas Mahut's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −1.9 on serve, −0.8 on return vs expectation (407 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 | Mark | Nicolas |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.07 ±0.14 better than 74% | +0.07 ±0.19 better than 76% |
| Shot selection | +0.32 ±0.21 better than 82% | +0.20 ±0.36 better than 73% |
| Execution | −1.40 ±0.61 better than 12% | −0.08 ±0.92 better than 64% |
| Points left on the table | 3.53 ±0.34 lower than 8% | 3.05 ±0.16 lower than 18% |
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.
Mark Philippoussis serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Mark wins | v Nicolas | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 46% | 81% | 77% | 84.4%±4.5 | 40% ▼ |
| Body | 7% | 66% | 65% | 67.5%±11.8 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 80% | 81% | 84.6%±4.9 | 60% ▲ |
Optimal v Nicolas Mahut: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Mark wins | v Nicolas | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 50% | 79% | 80% | 85.0%±4.8 | 63% ▲ |
| Body | 4% | 63% | 68% | 67.6%±13.7 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 46% | 79% | 77% | 83.1%±5.0 | 37% ▼ |
Optimal v Nicolas Mahut: +0.6±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Nicolas Mahut serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Nicolas wins | v Mark | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 80% | 79% | 85.0%±4.7 | 40% ▼ |
| Body | 11% | 65% | 65% | 67.3%±11.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 47% | 82% | 83% | 88.3%±4.0 | 60% ▲ |
Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +1.1±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Nicolas wins | v Mark | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 50% | 84% | 78% | 86.8%±4.4 | 63% ▲ |
| Body | 6% | 66% | 64% | 67.0%±13.6 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 44% | 78% | 77% | 81.9%±5.4 | 37% ▼ |
Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +0.6±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.3 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.
Mark Philippoussis returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nicolas | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 51% | +4.3 | −2.7 | +2.4 | +3.9±2.7 |
| FH down the line | 30% | +1.7 | −4.1 | −3.7 | −6.1±4.4 |
| FH crosscourt | 17% | +5.5 | −5.3 | +2.4 | +2.6±4.4 |
| FH slice through the middle | 3% | −4.2 | +0.8 | −0.5 | −4.0±2.0 |
Lean FH through the middle: +3.4±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (386 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nicolas | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice through the middle | 32% | −4.2 | ±0.0 | −0.7 | −4.9±2.3 |
| BH through the middle | 21% | +6.4 | −3.4 | −0.7 | +2.3±2.7 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 21% | +0.5 | +1.5 | −0.1 | +1.9±2.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 10% | +8.8 | −3.2 | −1.3 | +4.3±3.6 |
| BH down the line | 9% | +4.2 | −4.8 | −0.5 | −1.2±4.6 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +5.0±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (480 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nicolas | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 39% | −3.5 | −1.3 | +1.1 | −3.7±2.9 |
| FH down the line | 30% | −1.8 | −2.1 | −2.0 | −5.9±4.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 25% | −0.2 | ±0.0 | +1.1 | +0.9±4.1 |
| BH through the middle | 6% | +0.1 | −0.9 | +0.2 | −0.6±1.8 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.9±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (129 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Nicolas | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice crosscourt | 28% | −4.0 | +3.0 | ±0.0 | −1.0±2.1 |
| BH through the middle | 22% | −2.9 | +0.6 | +0.2 | −2.1±2.5 |
| BH crosscourt | 17% | +1.0 | +0.2 | +2.8 | +4.1±3.3 |
| BH slice through the middle | 15% | −11.3 | +0.7 | −1.2 | −11.8±2.2 |
| BH slice down the line | 7% | −9.3 | +0.9 | ±0.0 | −8.4±3.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +6.6±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (405 returns charted)
Nicolas Mahut returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mark | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 44% | +4.3 | +0.2 | −0.8 | +3.6±2.7 |
| FH down the line | 19% | +1.7 | −4.1 | −2.0 | −4.3±4.4 |
| FH crosscourt | 16% | +5.5 | −1.2 | −1.9 | +2.4±4.4 |
| FH slice through the middle | 14% | −4.2 | −0.3 | +0.1 | −4.4±2.1 |
| FH slice down the line | 5% | −4.3 | +2.7 | +0.1 | −1.4±2.3 |
Lean FH through the middle: +3.2±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (271 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mark | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice through the middle | 44% | −4.2 | +3.1 | −0.5 | −1.6±2.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 22% | +0.5 | +6.3 | −1.0 | +5.9±3.1 |
| BH through the middle | 11% | +6.4 | −1.2 | −3.7 | +1.5±2.6 |
| BH slice down the line | 9% | −8.4 | +3.4 | −1.2 | −6.2±3.1 |
| BH down the line | 8% | +4.2 | +1.1 | −3.2 | +2.2±4.3 |
Lean BH slice crosscourt: +5.2±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (201 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Mark | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice through the middle | 28% | −11.3 | +0.7 | +0.2 | −10.4±2.4 |
| BH down the line | 24% | −0.2 | −0.3 | +0.5 | ±0.0±5.0 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 18% | −4.0 | +0.3 | +1.5 | −2.3±2.5 |
| BH through the middle | 16% | −2.9 | −0.4 | −1.5 | −4.9±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 10% | +1.0 | −0.8 | −0.8 | −0.6±2.8 |
Lean BH down the line: +4.6±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (135 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.
Mark Philippoussis
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +5.3±3.6 | +1.0 | +4.4 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +5.0±4.0 | −0.3 | +5.3 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | +2.8±3.3 | +0.1 | +2.7 |
| FH to their forehand · return | ±0.0±4.5 | −3.0 | +3.1 |
| BH slice to their backhand · rally | −0.4±2.5 | +1.3 | −1.7 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | −0.4±4.0 | −1.1 | +0.7 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return | −8.2±3.8 | −4.3 | −3.9 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −5.3±2.6 | −1.6 | −3.6 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | −5.2±4.5 | −5.0 | −0.2 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −4.8±3.1 | −1.6 | −3.2 |
| BH to their forehand · return | −4.7±4.5 | −4.6 | −0.1 |
Nicolas Mahut
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +4.7±3.9 | +4.9 | −0.2 |
| BH slice to their backhand · return | +4.5±2.8 | +4.8 | −0.3 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +3.1±4.1 | −0.2 | +3.4 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | +2.4±3.4 | +0.9 | +1.5 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.1±3.5 | +1.2 | +0.8 |
| BH slice to their backhand · rally | +2.0±2.4 | +1.6 | +0.4 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return | −7.6±3.9 | −3.9 | −3.6 |
| BH to their forehand · return | −4.0±4.5 | −2.1 | −1.9 |
| BH to the middle · return | −4.0±2.4 | −0.7 | −3.2 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.5±2.4 | −0.5 | −1.0 |
| FH to the middle · rally | −1.3±2.5 | +0.1 | −1.4 |
Against Nicolas Mahut-like opponents
| Mark Philippoussis v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 68.7% | 30.3% |
| Players most similar to Nicolas Mahut | 2 | 62.4% | 27.7% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Pierre Hugues Herbert, Tim Van Rijthoven, Steve Johnson, Sergiy Stakhovsky, Roger Federer, Gilles Muller, Fernando Gonzalez, Tim Henman. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.