Game plan

Matteo Berrettini v Tim Van Rijthoven

Every number combines what Matteo Berrettini does well with what Tim Van Rijthoven allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Matteo Berrettini wins, best of 3 65%90%: 43%–83% · best of 5: 68%

Serve points won 72.2% / 69.0% Matteo / Tim · tour 63.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 69%serve 71.2% / 67.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Matteo Berrettini's record against Tim Van Rijthoven's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +4.6 on serve, −7.8 on return vs expectation (883 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	Matteo	Tim
Direction choice	−0.02 ±0.06 better than 51%	−0.02 ±0.06 better than 52%
Shot selection	−0.61 ±0.09 better than 8%	−0.41 ±0.13 better than 16%
Execution	+0.03 ±0.36 better than 70%	−1.17 ±0.75 better than 20%
Points left on the table	2.71 ±0.09 lower than 39%	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 47%

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.

Matteo Berrettini serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Matteo wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	79%	78%	82.8%±4.2	59% ▲
Body	6%	68%	67%	71.5%±8.4	0% ▼
T	48%	80%	79%	83.6%±3.9	41% ▼

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.7±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Matteo wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	50%	79%	73%	78.9%±4.5	44% ▼
Body	7%	68%	59%	64.1%±9.9	0% ▼
T	43%	76%	78%	80.6%±4.8	56% ▲

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.9±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +2.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Tim Van Rijthoven serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Matteo	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	78%	76%	80.4%±4.4	36% ▼
Body	6%	63%	65%	64.9%±10.9	0% ▼
T	51%	82%	75%	81.9%±4.2	64% ▲

Optimal v Matteo Berrettini: +0.7±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Matteo	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	81%	74%	82.6%±4.3	67% ▲
Body	6%	66%	65%	68.7%±10.9	0% ▼
T	40%	74%	71%	72.9%±5.8	33% ▼

Optimal v Matteo Berrettini: +0.6±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.7 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.

Matteo Berrettini returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	43%	+4.3	−0.5	−3.0	+0.7±2.4
FH slice through the middle	22%	−4.2	+1.2	+0.1	−2.9±2.0
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	−4.0	−1.2	−3.5±3.9
FH crosscourt	11%	+5.5	−1.3	−2.0	+2.2±4.1
FH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.3	+2.1	−1.0	−3.2±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.3±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (1460 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH through the middle	31%	+6.4	+0.7	−2.5	+4.7±2.2
BH slice through the middle	29%	−4.2	−0.5	−2.8	−7.5±2.0
BH crosscourt	15%	+8.8	+0.1	−2.8	+6.1±3.1
BH slice crosscourt	11%	+0.5	−1.5	−1.7	−2.7±2.6
BH down the line	7%	+4.2	+1.7	−1.3	+4.6±4.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +6.3±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (1842 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	51%	−3.5	−1.8	−1.9	−7.1±2.6
FH down the line	24%	−1.8	−1.3	−1.0	−4.0±4.6
FH crosscourt	16%	−0.2	−3.0	−4.6	−7.9±4.3
FH slice through the middle	6%	−12.7	+1.1	+0.7	−10.9±2.0
FH slice down the line	2%	−9.4	±0.0	±0.0	−9.4±1.5

Lean FH down the line: +2.8±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (389 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.9	+0.2	−0.1	−2.8±1.9
BH crosscourt	26%	+1.0	−1.2	−3.1	−3.3±2.8
BH down the line	12%	−0.2	±0.0	−4.0	−4.3±4.7
FH through the middle	8%	−2.9	+0.2	−1.9	−4.5±2.4
FH inside-in	3%	+0.6	−3.7	−4.6	−7.8±4.3
FH inside-out	2%	+1.0	−1.6	−1.0	−1.6±3.6

Lean FH inside-out: +1.8±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (1173 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Tim Van Rijthoven returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Matteo	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−3.6	−0.2	+0.4±2.4
FH slice through the middle	20%	−4.2	−1.7	+0.7	−5.2±2.0
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−0.8	+1.0	+5.7±3.9
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	−3.4	−1.2	−2.9±3.9
FH slice down the line	9%	−4.3	−1.7	+1.0	−5.0±3.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.5±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (247 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Matteo	Value
BH slice through the middle	44%	−4.2	−1.4	−1.3	−6.9±2.0
BH slice crosscourt	17%	+0.5	+0.2	−2.8	−2.1±2.8
BH through the middle	13%	+6.4	+1.6	+1.0	+9.0±2.3
BH down the line	11%	+4.2	−1.9	−4.0	−1.7±4.4
BH slice down the line	8%	−8.4	−0.8	−2.0	−11.1±3.4
BH crosscourt	6%	+8.8	+0.1	+1.5	+10.4±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +13.0±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (327 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Matteo	Value
FH through the middle	64%	−3.5	−1.6	−0.8	−5.9±2.3
FH crosscourt	24%	−0.2	+0.4	−0.5	−0.3±3.6
FH down the line	12%	−1.8	−0.8	±0.0	−2.6±3.1

Lean FH through the middle: −1.7±1.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (42 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Matteo	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.9	−0.3	−0.1	−3.2±2.0
BH crosscourt	22%	+1.0	−1.6	−1.6	−2.2±2.7
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−4.4	+0.1	−4.5±4.5
BH slice through the middle	6%	−11.3	−1.2	−0.5	−12.9±2.1
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.0	−0.7	−0.7	−5.4±2.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 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.

Matteo Berrettini

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH slice to the middle · return	+1.8±1.9	+1.5	+0.3
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−0.3±3.0	+1.1	−1.3
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.3±2.5	+0.9	−1.3
BH to the middle · rally	−0.5±1.8	−1.4	+0.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−1.1±2.0	−0.2	−0.9
BH to the middle · serve +1	−1.2±2.4	−2.8	+1.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−7.2±3.1	−2.0	−5.2
FH to their forehand · return	−6.9±4.0	−2.9	−4.0
BH to their backhand · rally	−5.3±2.1	−2.5	−2.8
BH to their forehand · return	−4.8±3.9	−0.9	−3.9
BH to their backhand · return	−4.3±2.5	−0.4	−3.9

Tim Van Rijthoven

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · return +1	+1.0±2.5	+0.7	+0.2
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+0.8±2.1	+3.4	−2.6
BH slice to their forehand · rally	+0.2±3.2	+2.5	−2.2
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+0.1±2.7	+2.9	−2.8
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.7±2.6	+1.2	−1.9
BH to their backhand · return +1	−1.0±2.9	−1.4	+0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return	−8.2±4.0	−5.9	−2.3
FH to their backhand · rally	−6.2±2.3	−3.7	−2.6
BH to their forehand · rally	−5.2±3.6	−2.2	−3.1
FH to their backhand · return	−4.8±3.4	−3.9	−0.9
FH to the middle · return	−4.7±1.9	−3.7	−1.0

Against Tim Van Rijthoven-like opponents

Matteo Berrettini v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	68.7%	33.6%
Players most similar to Tim Van Rijthoven	6	73.8%	26.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Ben Shelton, Tallon Griekspoor, Denis Shapovalov, Grigor Dimitrov, Alexei Popyrin, Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Vasek Pospisil, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Roger Federer. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.