RallyIQ

Game plan

Patrick Rafter v Mark Philippoussis

Every number combines what Patrick Rafter does well with what Mark Philippoussis allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Patrick Rafter wins, best of 3 38%90%: 17%–63% · best of 5: 35%
Serve points won 67.1% / 69.7% Patrick / Mark · tour 61.3%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 34%serve 66.1% / 69.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Patrick Rafter's record against Mark Philippoussis's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +1.5 on serve, −3.0 on return vs expectation (2491 points); head-to-head: +5.8 on serve, +15.3 on return vs expectation (202 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

CareerPatrickMark
Direction choice+0.05 ±0.14
better than 70%
+0.07 ±0.14
better than 74%
Shot selection+0.32 ±0.13
better than 81%
+0.32 ±0.21
better than 82%
Execution−1.03 ±0.40
better than 24%
−1.40 ±0.61
better than 12%
Points left on the table4.17 ±0.28
lower than 3%
3.53 ±0.34
lower than 8%

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.

Patrick Rafter serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowPatrick winsv MarkMatchupOptimal
Wide44%82%79%86.0%±3.357% ▲
Body12%67%65%68.3%±8.50% ▼
T44%76%83%83.7%±3.843% ▼

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +1.1±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowPatrick winsv MarkMatchupOptimal
Wide48%71%78%76.0%±4.548%
Body17%67%64%67.2%±9.54% ▼
T35%73%77%77.8%±4.948% ▲

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +2.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Mark Philippoussis serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMark winsv PatrickMatchupOptimal
Wide46%81%73%81.5%±4.040% ▼
Body7%66%69%71.5%±8.90% ▼
T47%80%79%82.9%±3.960% ▲

Optimal v Patrick Rafter: +0.5±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.

Ad court

1st serveNowMark winsv PatrickMatchupOptimal
Wide50%79%74%80.1%±4.163% ▲
Body4%63%66%66.1%±11.30% ▼
T46%79%70%77.7%±4.837% ▼

Optimal v Patrick Rafter: +0.3±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide 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.

Patrick Rafter returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
FH through the middle38%+4.3−1.3−0.8+2.1±2.3
FH crosscourt25%+5.5−1.4−1.9+2.2±3.9
FH down the line17%+1.7±0.0−2.0−0.2±4.1
FH slice through the middle12%−4.2+3.3+0.1−0.8±2.0
FH slice down the line4%−4.3+0.4+0.1−3.7±2.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.3±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (938 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
BH slice crosscourt36%+0.5+3.0−1.0+2.5±2.5
BH slice through the middle36%−4.2+0.5−0.5−4.3±2.0
BH slice down the line13%−8.4+1.7−1.2−7.8±3.1
BH crosscourt7%+8.8−1.4−1.7+5.7±3.5
BH through the middle7%+6.4−5.7−3.7−3.0±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.2±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (1133 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
FH through the middle27%−3.5−0.3−1.4−5.2±2.8
FH slice through the middle20%−12.7+3.6+0.6−8.5±2.0
FH crosscourt18%−0.2−2.1+1.0−1.3±4.4
FH down the line18%−1.8+0.5−4.1−5.4±4.7
FH slice down the line12%−9.4+2.8±0.0−6.7±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.1±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (257 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
BH slice crosscourt34%−4.0+2.3+1.5−0.2±2.2
BH slice through the middle23%−11.3+3.2+0.2−7.9±2.2
BH through the middle13%−2.9−1.8−1.5−6.2±2.3
BH crosscourt11%+1.0+1.9−0.8+2.1±3.1
BH slice down the line9%−9.3+1.1−1.3−9.5±4.0
BH down the line4%−0.2+5.2+0.5+5.5±4.9

Lean BH down the line: +8.8±4.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (778 returns charted)

Mark Philippoussis returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PatrickValue
FH through the middle51%+4.3−2.7−3.3−1.8±2.2
FH down the line30%+1.7−4.1+2.0−0.4±3.7
FH crosscourt17%+5.5−5.3+1.4+1.6±4.0
FH slice through the middle3%−4.2+0.8−2.6−6.0±2.1

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (386 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PatrickValue
BH slice through the middle32%−4.2±0.0−2.8−7.0±2.1
BH through the middle21%+6.4−3.4−4.3−1.3±2.2
BH slice crosscourt21%+0.5+1.5−2.9−0.8±2.8
BH crosscourt10%+8.8−3.2−0.5+5.1±3.1
BH down the line9%+4.2−4.8−2.5−3.1±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.9±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (480 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PatrickValue
FH through the middle39%−3.5−1.3−3.6−8.3±2.7
FH down the line30%−1.8−2.1+3.1−0.7±4.5
FH crosscourt25%−0.2±0.0+0.6+0.4±4.2
BH through the middle6%+0.1−0.9−2.6−3.3±1.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.0±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (129 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PatrickValue
BH slice crosscourt28%−4.0+3.0−3.2−4.2±2.5
BH through the middle22%−2.9+0.6−2.6−4.9±2.1
BH crosscourt17%+1.0+0.2+2.7+3.9±2.7
BH slice through the middle15%−11.3+0.7+0.4−10.2±2.4
BH slice down the line7%−9.3+0.9−3.5−11.9±4.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +8.0±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (405 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.

Patrick Rafter

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · rally+3.2±4.0+1.7+1.5
BH slice to their backhand · return+2.9±2.7+3.2−0.3
BH slice to their backhand · rally+2.3±2.7+1.9+0.4
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.1±4.7+2.3−0.2
FH to the middle · rally+1.6±2.9+3.0−1.4
FH to their backhand · return +1+0.7±4.5−2.7+3.4

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return−10.4±2.6−7.1−3.2
FH to their backhand · return−7.0±4.1−3.4−3.6
BH to their forehand · return−6.6±5.2−4.8−1.9
BH to the middle · return +1−4.8±3.0−3.3−1.5
FH to their backhand · rally−3.5±3.7−3.4−0.1

Mark Philippoussis

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return +1+6.3±3.5+0.1+6.2
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1+2.8±6.1−0.3+3.0
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1+2.6±6.2+3.6−1.0
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.2±4.0+1.0+1.2
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1+2.2±5.3−1.0+3.2
BH slice to their backhand · return+0.4±2.9+2.6−2.2

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return−8.4±2.4−2.3−6.1
FH to the middle · return−7.4±2.7−2.8−4.6
BH to their forehand · return−6.3±4.8−4.6−1.8
FH volley to their backhand · serve +1−5.8±4.8−5.4−0.3
FH to their forehand · return−5.1±4.7−3.0−2.1

Against Mark Philippoussis-like opponents

Patrick Rafter vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–66.3%33.4%
Players most similar to Mark Philippoussis13 66.6%28.3%
Mark Philippoussis (charted head-to-head)1 74.4%46.2%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Roger Federer, Gilles Muller, Mario Ancic, Tim Henman, Pete Sampras, Todd Martin, Boris Becker, Malivai Washington, Brad Gilbert. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.

Charted head-to-head