RallyIQ

Game plan

Mary Pierce v Maja Chwalinska

Every number combines what Mary Pierce does well with what Maja Chwalinska allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Mary Pierce wins, best of 3 44%90%: 15%–76% · best of 5: 42%
Serve points won 56.8% / 58.0% Mary / Maja · tour 56.3%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 44%serve 56.8% / 58.0%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Mary Pierce's record against Maja Chwalinska's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads. 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

CareerMaryMaja
Direction choice+0.30 ±0.11
better than 95%
−0.08 ±0.06
better than 40%
Shot selection+0.22 ±0.17
better than 71%
−0.52 ±0.28
better than 11%
Execution+0.69 ±0.50
better than 85%
+2.12 ±0.53
better than 99%
Points left on the table2.27 ±0.15
lower than 87%
2.93 ±0.10
lower than 14%

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.

Mary Pierce serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMary winsv MajaMatchupOptimal
Wide44%61%58%52.1%±8.229% ▼
Body23%60%57%59.2%±10.123%
T33%65%62%58.5%±10.048% ▲

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +0.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMary winsv MajaMatchupOptimal
Wide58%66%59%59.2%±9.657% ▼
Body13%54%53%50.4%±11.50% ▼
T28%63%58%56.8%±9.443% ▲

Optimal v Maja Chwalinska: +0.7±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Maja Chwalinska serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMaja winsv MaryMatchupOptimal
Wide26%62%65%60.9%±9.526%
Body28%55%50%48.3%±10.113% ▼
T46%65%74%71.1%±7.861% ▲

Optimal v Mary Pierce: +1.4±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +9.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMaja winsv MaryMatchupOptimal
Wide53%60%64%58.6%±8.552%
Body22%53%48%44.2%±11.37% ▼
T26%67%65%67.4%±9.641% ▲

Optimal v Mary Pierce: +1.2±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +9.6 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.

Mary Pierce returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MajaValue
FH through the middle39%+4.2−3.7+0.2+0.6±2.9
FH crosscourt31%+5.3+3.0+2.7+10.9±4.2
FH down the line18%+1.5−1.1+3.2+3.6±4.7
FH slice through the middle6%−6.7+1.4−1.2−6.5±2.1
FH slice down the line3%−10.5+3.3±0.0−7.2±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +7.4±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (364 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MajaValue
BH through the middle37%+6.0−1.6+2.1+6.6±2.7
BH crosscourt36%+7.7+1.1+1.3+10.2±3.5
BH down the line18%+2.2+2.7+2.7+7.6±4.7
BH slice through the middle5%−6.2+0.6+0.6−5.0±2.0
BH slice crosscourt4%−4.2+0.3±0.0−3.8±1.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.2±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (270 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MajaValue
FH crosscourt44%+0.5+2.9+0.4+3.9±4.3
FH through the middle34%−3.2−1.1−1.2−5.5±3.1
FH down the line19%−0.6−1.1−1.4−3.1±5.0
BH inside-in3%+2.0+0.6−0.1+2.5±3.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.5±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (163 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MajaValue
BH crosscourt40%+1.5−2.4−0.1−1.1±3.7
BH through the middle36%−2.6−0.9+1.4−2.1±2.8
BH down the line24%−0.5−1.2−1.4−3.2±4.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +0.9±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (136 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Maja Chwalinska returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MaryValue
FH through the middle41%+4.2+3.2+0.7+8.0±2.9
FH crosscourt21%+5.3+3.3+2.7+11.3±4.1
FH slice through the middle17%−6.7+1.6+0.7−4.5±2.3
FH down the line14%+1.5+1.1−0.2+2.4±4.4
FH slice crosscourt7%−6.6+1.5+0.8−4.4±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.4±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (111 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MaryValue
BH through the middle43%+6.0+1.2−3.0+4.2±2.6
BH crosscourt33%+7.7+2.4+3.5+13.7±3.6
BH down the line16%+2.2+3.6−2.4+3.3±4.5
BH slice through the middle3%−6.2−0.5−0.1−6.9±2.1
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.2+0.1+0.5−3.5±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.3±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (236 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MaryValue
BH through the middle31%−2.6+1.6+0.1−0.9±2.7
BH crosscourt29%+1.5±0.0+1.1+2.7±3.6
FH through the middle18%−2.7−1.1+1.9−1.9±2.6
BH down the line11%−0.5−1.3+0.8−1.1±4.7
FH inside-in5%+0.7+0.5−4.2−3.0±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.8±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (110 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.

Mary Pierce

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return +1+5.7±4.6+2.1+3.6
FH to their forehand · return+5.2±4.1+3.3+1.9
BH to their backhand · serve +1+4.8±3.5+2.8+2.0
FH to their forehand · return +1+4.2±3.8+3.7+0.5
BH to their backhand · return+2.6±3.2±0.0+2.5
BH to their forehand · return+2.2±4.2+1.1+1.1

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · rally−3.3±2.7−1.9−1.4
BH to their backhand · rally−2.5±2.5−0.4−2.0
FH to the middle · return−2.2±2.6−2.1−0.1
BH to their forehand · serve +1−1.3±4.3+1.8−3.1
FH to their backhand · rally−1.3±2.8−1.7+0.3

Maja Chwalinska

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return+7.7±4.4+4.5+3.2
FH to their forehand · rally+7.1±2.7+3.6+3.5
FH to their backhand · return +1+5.6±4.1+3.9+1.7
BH to their forehand · rally+5.0±4.0+2.9+2.1
BH to their forehand · serve +1+4.8±4.8+3.9+0.9
BH to their backhand · rally+4.4±2.9+3.6+0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.2±3.6−1.7+0.5
FH to the middle · return +1−0.4±2.7+0.2−0.7
FH to their forehand · return +1−0.1±3.8+0.1−0.2
FH to their backhand · rally±0.0±2.8+0.8−0.8
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.2±2.3+0.8+0.4

Against Maja Chwalinska-like opponents

Mary Pierce vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–58.4%43.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Magdalena Frech, Sara Bejlek, Kaja Juvan, Tiantsoa Sarah Rakotomanga Rajaonah, Sara Errani, Angelique Kerber, Brenda Fruhvirtova, Martina Trevisan, Kateryna Baindl, Agnieszka Radwanska. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.