Game plan

Mirra Andreeva v Amelie Mauresmo

Every number combines what Mirra Andreeva does well with what Amelie Mauresmo allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Mirra Andreeva wins, best of 3 80%90%: 55%–94% · best of 5: 85%

Serve points won 61.0% / 54.7% Mirra / Amelie · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 79%serve 60.8% / 54.8%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Mirra Andreeva's record against Amelie Mauresmo's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +6.2 on serve, +1.9 on return vs expectation (111 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	Mirra	Amelie
Direction choice	+0.12 ±0.04 better than 75%	+0.31 ±0.13 better than 95%
Shot selection	−0.43 ±0.08 better than 15%	−0.31 ±0.21 better than 21%
Execution	+1.22 ±0.22 better than 95%	+0.61 ±0.36 better than 82%
Points left on the table	2.42 ±0.06 lower than 73%	2.65 ±0.21 lower than 43%

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.

Mirra Andreeva serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Mirra wins	v Amelie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	69%	65%	68.5%±4.2	51%
Body	13%	59%	58%	59.2%±8.0	0% ▼
T	36%	73%	68%	73.2%±4.8	49% ▲

Optimal v Amelie Mauresmo: +0.9±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Mirra wins	v Amelie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	67%	65%	66.8%±5.2	35% ▲
Body	21%	61%	69%	73.1%±7.0	35% ▲
T	45%	65%	62%	63.5%±5.2	30% ▼

Optimal v Amelie Mauresmo: +0.2±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +6.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Amelie Mauresmo serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Amelie wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	56%	66%	60%	59.3%±4.6	47% ▼
Body	10%	61%	56%	59.8%±8.6	3% ▼
T	35%	73%	61%	66.5%±5.9	50% ▲

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.1±0.7 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	Amelie wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	64%	64%	62.2%±5.3	61% ▲
Body	7%	51%	47%	41.6%±9.7	0% ▼
T	47%	65%	62%	62.7%±5.0	39% ▼

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.5±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.7 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.

Mirra Andreeva returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
FH through the middle	34%	+4.2	+1.5	−0.3	+5.4±1.9
FH down the line	24%	+1.5	+3.1	−1.5	+3.1±3.4
FH slice through the middle	19%	−6.7	+0.1	+0.9	−5.8±2.1
FH slice crosscourt	11%	−6.6	+0.6	−0.9	−6.9±2.2
FH crosscourt	8%	+5.3	−3.2	+2.1	+4.2±3.7

Lean FH through the middle: +4.6±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (2589 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
BH through the middle	46%	+6.0	+1.9	−1.9	+6.1±1.8
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	+0.2	−2.3	+5.6±2.9
BH down the line	14%	+2.2	+3.5	+0.9	+6.6±4.0
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−2.0	−0.7	−9.0±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.2	−2.7	+0.7	−6.2±2.8

Lean BH down the line: +2.8±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (1925 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
FH through the middle	37%	−3.2	+1.0	−0.6	−2.9±2.5
FH down the line	34%	−0.6	±0.0	−1.4	−2.0±4.5
FH crosscourt	15%	+0.5	−5.4	−2.1	−7.0±4.1
BH through the middle	5%	−1.0	+0.5	+0.8	+0.3±2.3
BH inside-in	3%	+2.0	+0.6	+1.3	+3.9±3.7

Lean BH inside-in: +7.3±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (743 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Amelie	Value
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+1.0	+0.8	−0.8±2.2
BH down the line	31%	−0.5	+0.8	−0.1	+0.2±4.5
BH crosscourt	25%	+1.5	−1.4	+1.3	+1.4±3.1
FH through the middle	3%	−2.7	−1.2	−0.6	−4.6±2.5
FH inside-in	2%	+0.7	+0.3	−2.1	−1.1±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.5±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (1071 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Amelie Mauresmo returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH through the middle	38%	+4.2	+0.2	+0.1	+4.4±2.0
FH down the line	19%	+1.5	+3.1	−1.6	+3.0±3.7
FH slice through the middle	18%	−6.7	+1.4	−0.9	−6.2±2.1
FH crosscourt	13%	+5.3	+0.9	−1.9	+4.3±3.5
FH slice crosscourt	9%	−6.6	+1.4	−0.6	−5.9±2.6

Lean FH through the middle: +3.4±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (580 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH slice through the middle	49%	−6.2	+1.1	+0.1	−5.1±2.1
BH slice crosscourt	22%	−4.2	+4.0	−2.7	−2.8±2.9
BH through the middle	9%	+6.0	−3.6	−0.6	+1.8±2.2
BH slice down the line	9%	−12.5	+3.3	−1.8	−11.0±3.6
BH down the line	6%	+2.2	+1.4	−0.5	+3.0±3.9
BH crosscourt	4%	+7.7	+1.8	−0.8	+8.7±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +12.1±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (412 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH down the line	31%	−0.6	+4.2	−2.2	+1.4±4.8
FH through the middle	31%	−3.2	+0.4	+0.4	−2.4±2.6
FH crosscourt	28%	+0.5	+0.4	−2.9	−2.0±4.0
FH slice through the middle	5%	−15.2	+2.2	−1.4	−14.4±2.0
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−14.9	+0.6	+0.2	−14.1±2.1

Lean FH down the line: +3.7±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (201 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH through the middle	27%	−2.6	−0.5	+0.1	−3.0±2.2
BH slice through the middle	19%	−11.7	−0.7	+0.5	−11.9±2.1
BH crosscourt	15%	+1.5	−1.5	−0.1	−0.1±2.9
BH down the line	15%	−0.5	+0.1	−2.9	−3.4±4.4
BH slice crosscourt	13%	−7.5	+0.6	−0.8	−7.8±2.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (246 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 on clay. Each player's clay record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Mirra Andreeva

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return	+5.0±4.7	+1.4	+3.6
BH to the middle · return +1	+4.4±2.8	+0.5	+3.9
BH to their forehand · return +1	+4.3±5.3	+1.2	+3.2
FH to their forehand · return +1	+3.8±4.2	+0.6	+3.2
BH to their backhand · return +1	+3.7±3.4	+2.7	+1.0
FH to the middle · serve +1	+3.7±3.0	+2.0	+1.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−3.8±4.9	−0.1	−3.7
FH to their backhand · return	−3.2±4.1	+1.4	−4.6
BH to their forehand · rally	−2.5±3.9	+1.7	−4.2
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−1.9±3.6	−2.6	+0.6
FH to their backhand · return +1	−1.6±4.3	−0.3	−1.3

Amelie Mauresmo

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return +1	+5.4±2.8	+4.2	+1.2
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+5.0±3.9	+6.3	−1.4
FH to the middle · rally	+4.0±2.5	+2.3	+1.7
FH to the middle · return +1	+3.9±3.0	+2.0	+1.9
FH to their backhand · return +1	+3.3±4.4	+2.4	+0.9
FH slice to their forehand · return	+3.3±3.3	+1.8	+1.5

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to the middle · rally	−4.8±2.6	−3.8	−1.0
FH to their forehand · return	−4.4±4.6	−2.6	−1.8
BH to the middle · return	−3.4±2.8	−2.4	−1.0
BH to their forehand · rally	−3.1±4.1	−0.7	−2.4
BH slice to their backhand · return	−3.0±3.9	+2.4	−5.4

Against Amelie Mauresmo-like opponents

Mirra Andreeva v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	59.9%	46.4%
Players most similar to Amelie Mauresmo	1	66.1%	47.3%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Elise Mertens, Kim Clijsters, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Christina Mchale, Saisai Zheng, Magdalena Rybarikova, Francesca Schiavone, Roberta Vinci, Martina Hingis. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.