Game plan

Mirra Andreeva v Venus Williams

Every number combines what Mirra Andreeva does well with what Venus Williams 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 79%90%: 57%–93% · best of 5: 85%

Serve points won 58.3% / 52.2% Mirra / Venus · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 83%serve 58.5% / 51.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Venus Williams's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −0.4 on serve, −2.0 on return vs expectation (1815 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	Venus
Direction choice	+0.12 ±0.04 better than 75%	−0.04 ±0.07 better than 47%
Shot selection	−0.43 ±0.08 better than 15%	+0.66 ±0.09 better than 98%
Execution	+1.22 ±0.22 better than 95%	−0.28 ±0.26 better than 45%
Points left on the table	2.42 ±0.06 lower than 73%	2.52 ±0.09 lower than 63%

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.

Structural compatibility

Expected edge per 100 rally shots from style alone: Mirra Andreeva +1.29, Venus Williams −0.79. Each player's shot mix weighted by their own skill with each shot and by how much the other gives up against it. This is why some rankings gaps don't hold in a given matchup.

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 Venus	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	69%	65%	68.6%±2.9	49% ▼
Body	13%	59%	56%	57.3%±5.2	0% ▼
T	36%	73%	67%	72.4%±3.4	51% ▲

Optimal v Venus Williams: +1.1±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Mirra wins	v Venus	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	67%	64%	65.6%±3.8	18% ▼
Body	21%	61%	59%	64.2%±4.5	22%
T	45%	65%	67%	67.6%±3.3	60% ▲

Optimal v Venus Williams: +0.3±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Venus Williams serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Venus wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	36%	68%	60%	61.6%±3.4	51% ▲
Body	28%	62%	56%	61.0%±4.6	13% ▼
T	36%	71%	61%	64.2%±3.9	36%

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 +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Venus wins	v Mirra	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	28%	72%	64%	70.0%±4.1	30% ▲
Body	33%	61%	47%	51.5%±5.2	18% ▼
T	39%	64%	62%	61.4%±3.5	52% ▲

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +9.5 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 Venus	Value
FH through the middle	34%	+4.2	+1.5	−1.7	+4.0±1.4
FH down the line	24%	+1.5	+3.1	−1.3	+3.3±2.8
FH slice through the middle	19%	−6.7	+0.1	−1.6	−8.3±2.0
FH slice crosscourt	11%	−6.6	+0.6	−0.9	−6.9±2.4
FH crosscourt	8%	+5.3	−3.2	−2.7	−0.6±3.1
BH inside-in	1%	+7.3	−1.4	−0.3	+5.6±2.9

Lean BH inside-in: +6.1±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (2589 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Venus	Value
BH through the middle	46%	+6.0	+1.9	−2.1	+5.8±1.3
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	+0.2	−0.3	+7.6±2.4
BH down the line	14%	+2.2	+3.5	−3.9	+1.8±3.3
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−2.0	−1.5	−9.8±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.2	−2.7	−2.4	−9.3±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.4±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (1925 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Venus	Value
FH through the middle	37%	−3.2	+1.0	−0.5	−2.7±2.0
FH down the line	34%	−0.6	±0.0	+0.2	−0.4±3.7
FH crosscourt	15%	+0.5	−5.4	−1.1	−5.9±3.5
BH through the middle	5%	−1.0	+0.5	+0.8	+0.3±2.0
BH inside-in	3%	+2.0	+0.6	+2.8	+5.3±3.3

Lean BH inside-in: +7.9±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (743 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Venus	Value
BH through the middle	37%	−2.6	+1.0	+0.8	−0.8±1.8
BH down the line	31%	−0.5	+0.8	−0.5	−0.2±3.8
BH crosscourt	25%	+1.5	−1.4	+2.8	+2.9±2.7
FH through the middle	3%	−2.7	−1.2	−0.5	−4.4±2.1
FH inside-in	2%	+0.7	+0.3	−1.1	±0.0±3.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.7±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (1071 returns charted)

Venus Williams returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH through the middle	57%	+4.2	−1.7	+0.1	+2.5±1.3
FH crosscourt	23%	+5.3	−2.5	−1.9	+0.9±2.6
FH down the line	18%	+1.5	+0.8	−1.6	+0.7±3.1
BH through the middle	1%	+5.2	+0.4	−0.6	+5.0±2.0
BH inside-in	0%	+7.3	+0.9	−0.8	+7.4±2.2

Lean BH through the middle: +3.1±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (1680 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH through the middle	54%	+6.0	−0.4	−0.6	+5.0±1.3
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	+1.3	−0.8	+8.2±2.3
BH down the line	14%	+2.2	+1.4	−0.5	+3.1±3.5
BH slice through the middle	3%	−6.2	−0.2	+0.1	−6.4±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	2%	−4.2	−2.5	−2.7	−9.4±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.6±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (1311 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
FH through the middle	49%	−3.2	±0.0	+0.4	−2.9±2.1
FH crosscourt	24%	+0.5	−1.3	−2.9	−3.6±3.7
FH down the line	23%	−0.6	+0.4	−2.2	−2.4±4.5
BH through the middle	3%	−1.0	−1.6	+0.1	−2.4±1.7
BH inside-in	1%	+2.0	+1.3	−0.1	+3.2±2.3

Lean BH through the middle: +0.5±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (554 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Mirra	Value
BH crosscourt	43%	+1.5	−1.1	−0.1	+0.3±2.3
BH through the middle	41%	−2.6	−2.3	+0.1	−4.8±1.7
BH down the line	15%	−0.5	+4.3	−2.9	+0.9±4.3

Lean BH down the line: +2.6±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (596 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 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
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+6.7±6.7	+1.7	+5.1
FH slice to their forehand · rally	+4.7±3.6	+3.2	+1.5
BH to their forehand · rally	+4.2±3.9	+1.7	+2.4
BH to their backhand · rally	+4.0±2.5	+2.1	+1.9
FH slice to the middle · rally	+3.5±3.0	+1.4	+2.1
BH volley to their forehand · rally	+2.6±7.5	+0.6	+2.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their forehand · rally	−3.7±4.6	−5.9	+2.2
FH to their forehand · return	−3.6±4.4	−4.6	+1.1
BH slice to their backhand · return +1	−3.5±3.4	−1.7	−1.7
BH slice to the middle · return	−2.9±2.9	−1.5	−1.5
FH to the middle · return	−1.7±2.4	+1.1	−2.8

Venus Williams

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH volley to their backhand · rally	+7.1±7.6	+3.5	+3.6
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+3.3±6.7	+2.0	+1.4
BH to their backhand · return +1	+3.2±3.1	+1.5	+1.7
BH volley to their forehand · rally	+1.9±7.3	−0.1	+2.0
BH slice to the middle · serve +1	+1.8±3.0	+1.4	+0.5
BH to the middle · rally	+1.8±2.1	+1.4	+0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	−6.1±3.6	−3.7	−2.4
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−4.5±4.6	−3.0	−1.5
BH slice to the middle · rally	−3.4±2.0	−2.4	−1.0
FH volley to their backhand · rally	−3.4±7.8	−0.5	−2.9
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.4±3.2	−3.0	−0.3

Against Venus Williams-like opponents

Mirra Andreeva v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	59.9%	46.4%
Players most similar to Venus Williams	12	56.2%	40.1%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Coco Gauff, Iga Swiatek, Elise Mertens, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Veronika Kudermetova, Eugenie Bouchard, Simona Halep, Maria Sharapova, Louisa Chirico, Lindsay Davenport. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.