Game plan

Peter Gojowczyk v Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Every number combines what Peter Gojowczyk does well with what Camilo Ugo Carabelli allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Peter Gojowczyk wins, best of 3 28%90%: 7%–63% · best of 5: 23%

Serve points won 53.4% / 57.9% Peter / Camilo · tour 61.3%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 28%serve 53.4% / 57.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Peter Gojowczyk's record against Camilo Ugo Carabelli'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

Career	Peter	Camilo
Direction choice	+0.06 ±0.12 better than 71%	−0.26 ±0.08 better than 7%
Shot selection	+0.35 ±0.11 better than 83%	−0.62 ±0.47 better than 8%
Execution	−2.25 ±0.64 better than 1%	−0.37 ±0.45 better than 50%
Points left on the table	2.17 ±0.24 lower than 95%	2.74 ±0.12 lower than 36%

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.

Peter Gojowczyk serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Peter wins	v Camilo	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	66%	70%	62.2%±9.9	40% ▼
Body	7%	51%	67%	55.3%±15.9	0% ▼
T	47%	72%	74%	71.5%±8.9	60% ▲

Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.5±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Peter wins	v Camilo	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	76%	67%	71.0%±9.3	42% ▼
Body	6%	50%	58%	44.4%±16.9	0% ▼
T	49%	70%	71%	69.8%±9.7	58% ▲

Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.2±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Camilo Ugo Carabelli serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Camilo wins	v Peter	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	31%	75%	80%	82.0%±7.2	44% ▲
Body	28%	62%	59%	57.2%±12.7	15% ▼
T	41%	68%	72%	64.8%±10.1	41%

Optimal v Peter Gojowczyk: +1.2±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +14.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Camilo wins	v Peter	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	68%	74%	68.9%±9.8	34%
Body	14%	59%	61%	57.3%±14.1	1% ▼
T	52%	67%	74%	69.3%±9.4	65% ▲

Optimal v Peter Gojowczyk: +0.6±1.0 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.

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.

Peter Gojowczyk returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Camilo	Value
FH through the middle	51%	+4.3	−0.6	−0.3	+3.4±3.0
FH down the line	37%	+1.7	−1.8	+0.3	+0.2±4.5
FH crosscourt	12%	+5.5	−1.0	+2.2	+6.7±4.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.1±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (164 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Camilo	Value
BH through the middle	50%	+6.4	+1.9	−1.0	+7.2±2.8
BH crosscourt	27%	+8.8	+2.2	−0.9	+10.0±3.5
BH down the line	16%	+4.2	+0.2	−1.4	+3.0±4.3
BH slice through the middle	7%	−4.2	−0.6	−1.3	−6.1±1.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.7±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (138 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Camilo	Value
FH through the middle	52%	−3.5	−3.0	−0.5	−7.0±2.8
FH down the line	26%	−1.8	+0.9	+0.5	−0.3±4.2
FH crosscourt	21%	−0.2	−2.0	+1.5	−0.7±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: −3.1±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (42 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Camilo	Value
BH crosscourt	45%	+1.0	+1.2	−0.9	+1.3±3.3
BH through the middle	38%	−2.9	−0.2	+0.6	−2.4±2.6
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−2.2	−0.7	−3.2±4.2
FH through the middle	5%	−2.9	+0.6	−0.5	−2.8±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.2±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (97 returns charted)

Camilo Ugo Carabelli returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Peter	Value
FH through the middle	39%	+4.3	±0.0	−0.8	+3.5±3.1
FH slice through the middle	25%	−4.2	−1.2	+0.9	−4.4±2.3
FH down the line	15%	+1.7	−2.2	−0.9	−1.5±4.2
FH crosscourt	9%	+5.5	+0.1	+1.2	+6.9±3.8
FH slice down the line	8%	−4.3	−1.2	−0.4	−5.8±2.3

Lean FH through the middle: +3.4±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (137 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Peter	Value
BH through the middle	42%	+6.4	+1.5	+2.3	+10.2±2.8
BH crosscourt	27%	+8.8	+0.5	±0.0	+9.3±3.5
BH down the line	21%	+4.2	−0.4	−0.4	+3.3±4.3
BH slice down the line	3%	−8.4	+0.2	−0.8	−9.1±2.6
BH slice through the middle	3%	−4.2	+0.4	+0.6	−3.2±1.9

Lean BH through the middle: +3.2±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Peter	Value
FH through the middle	65%	−3.5	−0.6	−1.5	−5.6±2.9
FH down the line	19%	−1.8	+0.2	−0.8	−2.4±3.9
FH crosscourt	16%	−0.2	+0.9	−1.8	−1.2±3.6

Lean FH through the middle: −1.3±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (43 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Peter	Value
BH crosscourt	33%	+1.0	±0.0	−2.3	−1.3±3.2
BH through the middle	22%	−2.9	−2.0	−1.2	−6.1±2.4
FH through the middle	19%	−2.9	+0.2	−1.5	−4.2±2.3
FH inside-out	18%	+1.0	+1.0	−0.8	+1.2±3.4
BH down the line	7%	−0.2	−3.6	+5.4	+1.6±4.1

Lean FH inside-out: +3.5±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 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.

Peter Gojowczyk

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return +1	+1.9±3.6	+0.3	+1.5
BH to the middle · return	+1.6±2.8	+0.8	+0.7
BH to their backhand · return	+1.5±3.5	+1.4	±0.0
FH to their backhand · return	+0.1±4.6	−1.0	+1.1
BH to the middle · rally	−0.1±2.5	+1.2	−1.3
FH to their forehand · return +1	−0.9±5.2	−1.2	+0.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	−9.4±5.2	−5.6	−3.8
FH to their backhand · rally	−7.8±2.9	−5.3	−2.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−6.1±4.1	−4.5	−1.6
FH to their forehand · rally	−4.9±3.2	−3.7	−1.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−2.9±4.1	−1.0	−2.0

Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.2±3.5	+2.7	+2.5
BH to the middle · rally	+4.5±2.4	+2.2	+2.2
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.3±4.0	+2.2	+2.1
BH to the middle · return	+4.2±3.0	+4.0	+0.2
FH to the middle · serve +1	+3.3±3.3	+2.7	+0.7
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+2.8±3.0	+1.9	+1.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	−2.8±5.3	−4.6	+1.8
BH to the middle · serve +1	−2.7±3.2	−1.4	−1.3
FH to the middle · return	−1.9±3.1	+0.3	−2.2
BH to their backhand · return	−0.7±3.9	+2.3	−3.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+0.3±5.3	+1.0	−0.7

Against Camilo Ugo Carabelli-like opponents

Peter Gojowczyk v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	57.2%	34.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jesper De Jong, Tomas Martin Etcheverry, Alex De Minaur, Botic Van De Zandschulp, Miomir Kecmanovic, Taro Daniel, Emil Ruusuvuori, Juan Martin Del Potro, David Ferrer, Guillermo Canas. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.