Game plan

Marta Kostyuk v Bernarda Pera

Every number combines what Marta Kostyuk does well with what Bernarda Pera allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Marta Kostyuk wins, best of 3 90%90%: 77%–97% · best of 5: 95%

Serve points won 64.4% / 54.5% Marta / Bernarda · tour 56.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 87%serve 63.6% / 54.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Marta Kostyuk's record against Bernarda Pera's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +15.6 on serve, +6.4 on return vs expectation (199 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	Marta	Bernarda
Direction choice	−0.06 ±0.05 better than 43%	−0.32 ±0.14 better than 5%
Shot selection	+0.13 ±0.09 better than 60%	−0.17 ±0.15 better than 31%
Execution	−0.34 ±0.29 better than 41%	−1.62 ±0.67 better than 8%
Points left on the table	2.69 ±0.07 lower than 36%	3.45 ±0.16 lower than 1%

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.

Marta Kostyuk serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Marta wins	v Bernarda	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	36%	70%	70%	74.5%±5.8	51% ▲
Body	24%	60%	60%	62.5%±9.2	9% ▼
T	40%	72%	73%	76.8%±6.2	40%

Optimal v Bernarda Pera: +1.2±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Marta wins	v Bernarda	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	73%	75%	80.8%±5.6	62% ▲
Body	26%	58%	59%	61.6%±8.6	11% ▼
T	27%	64%	73%	72.2%±7.2	27%

Optimal v Bernarda Pera: +1.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +7.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Bernarda Pera serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Bernarda wins	v Marta	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	69%	63%	66.7%±7.4	48% ▲
Body	21%	57%	57%	56.2%±8.8	6% ▼
T	45%	63%	68%	63.2%±6.9	46%

Optimal v Marta Kostyuk: +0.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Bernarda wins	v Marta	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	52%	62%	64%	59.9%±6.5	60% ▲
Body	22%	56%	58%	57.0%±8.9	7% ▼
T	26%	67%	61%	64.0%±8.4	33% ▲

Optimal v Marta Kostyuk: +0.4±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.7 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.

Marta Kostyuk returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Bernarda	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	+0.6	−3.0	+1.8±2.4
FH crosscourt	19%	+5.3	+0.5	+3.5	+9.3±3.8
FH slice through the middle	17%	−6.7	+1.4	−0.4	−5.7±2.0
FH down the line	12%	+1.5	+4.8	−3.4	+2.9±4.4
FH slice crosscourt	8%	−6.6	+0.9	+0.3	−5.4±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.1±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (1346 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Bernarda	Value
BH through the middle	52%	+6.0	−0.2	−1.1	+4.7±2.1
BH crosscourt	29%	+7.7	−2.1	±0.0	+5.5±3.1
BH down the line	10%	+2.2	−1.1	−4.2	−3.1±4.6
BH slice through the middle	4%	−6.2	−0.1	−1.2	−7.5±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	−0.7	+0.1	−4.8±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.4±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (969 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Bernarda	Value
FH through the middle	41%	−3.2	+1.5	−1.5	−3.2±2.9
FH crosscourt	28%	+0.5	−1.0	−4.6	−5.1±4.3
FH down the line	25%	−0.6	+0.7	−2.8	−2.7±5.1
FH slice through the middle	4%	−15.2	+0.6	±0.0	−14.6±1.5
FH slice crosscourt	2%	−14.9	+0.6	±0.0	−14.3±1.5

Lean FH down the line: +1.6±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (362 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Bernarda	Value
BH through the middle	46%	−2.6	−2.6	−1.4	−6.6±2.5
BH crosscourt	30%	+1.5	−1.1	−1.7	−1.3±3.4
BH down the line	19%	−0.5	+1.0	+1.1	+1.5±5.0
FH inside-out	2%	+1.4	±0.0	−2.8	−1.4±3.8
FH through the middle	1%	−2.7	−0.2	−1.5	−4.3±2.3

Lean BH down the line: +4.8±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (471 returns charted)

Bernarda Pera returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marta	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.2	−3.0	+0.7	+1.9±2.6
FH down the line	22%	+1.5	−2.6	−3.9	−5.0±4.1
FH slice through the middle	15%	−6.7	−3.0	−0.7	−10.4±2.4
FH crosscourt	11%	+5.3	−0.9	−2.7	+1.7±3.6
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	−0.6	−1.8	−9.0±2.3

Lean FH through the middle: +4.4±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (158 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marta	Value
BH through the middle	39%	+6.0	−1.8	−0.2	+4.1±2.3
BH crosscourt	31%	+7.7	−1.3	−2.8	+3.6±3.3
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+0.3	−1.5	+1.0±3.8
BH slice through the middle	11%	−6.2	−0.9	−2.3	−9.4±2.3
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.2	−0.4	−1.6	−6.2±2.6

Lean BH through the middle: +3.0±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (189 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marta	Value
FH through the middle	45%	−3.2	−0.2	+0.3	−3.0±2.5
FH crosscourt	29%	+0.5	+0.7	−2.4	−1.2±3.7
FH down the line	26%	−0.6	−5.1	−2.3	−7.9±4.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (58 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Marta	Value
BH crosscourt	43%	+1.5	−2.3	−1.3	−2.1±3.6
BH through the middle	43%	−2.6	−1.4	−0.1	−4.0±2.4
BH down the line	13%	−0.5	−1.2	−2.8	−4.6±4.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.2±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (120 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 hard. Each player's hard record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Marta Kostyuk

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	+5.6±5.1	+4.1	+1.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.2±4.3	+1.5	+2.8
FH to their forehand · return +1	+2.1±4.7	+1.7	+0.4
FH to the middle · return +1	+1.7±3.2	+2.2	−0.5
FH to their backhand · return	+0.9±5.0	+0.7	+0.2
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+0.4±4.5	−1.0	+1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return +1	−10.4±6.4	−5.8	−4.5
BH to their backhand · return	−6.7±4.1	−2.0	−4.7
BH to the middle · serve +1	−4.3±3.2	+0.2	−4.5
FH to their forehand · return	−4.0±5.4	+2.0	−6.0
FH to the middle · rally	−3.2±2.5	+1.4	−4.7

Bernarda Pera

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+2.5±5.7	+4.5	−2.1
BH to their forehand · rally	+1.5±4.5	+2.6	−1.0
BH to the middle · serve +1	−0.3±2.8	−0.9	+0.6
BH to the middle · return +1	−0.5±3.2	−2.2	+1.7
BH to the middle · rally	−1.7±2.2	−0.5	−1.2
FH to the middle · return +1	−1.9±3.5	−1.2	−0.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	−12.2±5.0	−8.2	−4.0
BH to their backhand · rally	−9.8±3.9	−9.1	−0.7
FH to their backhand · return +1	−6.3±5.1	−1.7	−4.6
FH to their forehand · rally	−6.2±3.3	−3.7	−2.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−6.1±4.2	−6.1	±0.0

Against Bernarda Pera-like opponents

Marta Kostyuk v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	58.2%	44.7%
Players most similar to Bernarda Pera	2	73.9%	50.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Diana Shnaider, Jasmine Paolini, Barbora Krejcikova, Maya Joint, Robin Montgomery, Olga Danilovic, Yue Yuan, Xiyu Wang, Anett Kontaveit. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.