Game plan

Rebecca Marino v Katie Volynets

Every number combines what Rebecca Marino does well with what Katie Volynets allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Rebecca Marino wins, best of 3 50%90%: 20%–81% · best of 5: 50%

Serve points won 59.7% / 59.7% Rebecca / Katie · tour 58.1%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 55%serve 60.0% / 59.2%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Rebecca Marino's record against Katie Volynets's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −3.3 on serve, −8.0 on return vs expectation (259 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	Rebecca	Katie
Direction choice	−0.18 ±0.10 better than 20%	−0.17 ±0.13 better than 23%
Shot selection	+0.03 ±0.15 better than 48%	±0.00 ±0.15 better than 45%
Execution	−0.84 ±0.52 better than 23%	+1.57 ±0.45 better than 97%
Points left on the table	2.70 ±0.11 lower than 33%	2.59 ±0.19 lower than 53%

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: Rebecca Marino +0.05, Katie Volynets +0.92. 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.

Rebecca Marino serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Rebecca wins	v Katie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	65%	66%	64.9%±7.3	60% ▲
Body	11%	65%	57%	65.1%±11.2	5% ▼
T	44%	75%	63%	70.0%±8.6	35% ▼

Optimal v Katie Volynets: +0.2±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Rebecca wins	v Katie	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	77%	62%	73.9%±7.3	60% ▲
Body	10%	56%	52%	51.4%±12.8	0% ▼
T	42%	72%	64%	71.4%±7.4	40% ▼

Optimal v Katie Volynets: +0.7±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Katie Volynets serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Katie wins	v Rebecca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	64%	63%	61.7%±7.0	62% ▲
Body	29%	52%	55%	49.8%±9.2	13% ▼
T	24%	58%	65%	55.5%±10.0	25%

Optimal v Rebecca Marino: +1.0±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Katie wins	v Rebecca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	28%	68%	63%	65.9%±8.8	43% ▲
Body	22%	54%	52%	50.1%±9.9	7% ▼
T	50%	59%	65%	59.6%±7.5	50%

Optimal v Rebecca Marino: +0.8±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +6.6 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.

Rebecca Marino returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Katie	Value
FH through the middle	61%	+4.2	−0.1	+1.9	+6.0±2.4
FH crosscourt	20%	+5.3	−2.3	+3.9	+7.0±4.0
FH down the line	18%	+1.5	−0.2	+1.9	+3.2±4.5
FH slice through the middle	1%	−6.7	−1.4	−0.5	−8.6±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.5±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (337 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Katie	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	−0.1	+1.6	+7.6±2.6
BH crosscourt	26%	+7.7	+3.8	+2.6	+14.1±3.5
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	−1.3	+1.3	+2.2±4.6
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−1.5	+0.7	−7.1±2.1
BH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.2	−0.7	−0.7	−5.6±2.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.1±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (198 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Katie	Value
FH through the middle	57%	−3.2	+1.8	+2.0	+0.6±3.1
FH crosscourt	35%	+0.5	+2.1	+0.2	+2.8±4.3
FH down the line	9%	−0.6	−1.7	+2.7	+0.5±4.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.4±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (69 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Katie	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.6	+1.6	+0.5	−0.5±2.8
BH crosscourt	41%	+1.5	+0.4	+1.0	+2.8±3.7
BH down the line	12%	−0.5	+1.0	+2.3	+2.8±4.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (93 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Katie Volynets returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
FH through the middle	49%	+4.2	+1.6	+1.3	+7.1±2.7
FH crosscourt	32%	+5.3	+1.3	−3.9	+2.7±4.2
FH down the line	11%	+1.5	−2.2	−3.0	−3.7±4.7
FH slice through the middle	5%	−6.7	−0.3	−0.1	−7.0±2.4
FH slice crosscourt	2%	−6.6	±0.0	−0.8	−7.3±2.2

Lean FH through the middle: +3.9±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (372 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	+1.5	−1.9	+5.6±2.7
BH crosscourt	25%	+7.7	+4.0	−2.6	+9.1±3.7
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+1.4	−2.0	+1.6±4.6
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	±0.0	−0.8	−7.0±2.3
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	+0.5	−2.3	−6.0±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (294 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
FH through the middle	54%	−3.2	+2.6	+0.1	−0.4±3.1
FH crosscourt	35%	+0.5	+1.2	+0.5	+2.2±4.3
FH down the line	11%	−0.6	−2.5	−1.9	−4.9±4.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.2±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (83 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
BH through the middle	48%	−2.6	+1.4	+1.3	+0.1±2.6
BH crosscourt	32%	+1.5	+3.5	+0.7	+5.6±3.6
BH down the line	20%	−0.5	−0.3	+0.2	−0.6±5.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.9±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (125 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 grass. Each player's grass record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Rebecca Marino

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return	+4.7±3.3	+1.7	+3.0
FH to the middle · return	+4.4±2.1	+1.6	+2.9
BH to the middle · serve +1	+3.3±2.5	+0.6	+2.7
FH to their backhand · return	+2.7±4.2	−0.3	+3.0
BH to the middle · return	+2.7±2.1	−0.2	+2.9
FH to their forehand · return	+2.2±3.8	−1.6	+3.8

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · return +1	−3.7±2.6	−4.1	+0.3
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.2±2.8	−3.5	+0.3
BH to their forehand · rally	−2.0±4.0	−2.6	+0.5
FH to their forehand · rally	−1.9±2.2	−1.7	−0.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−1.8±3.5	−3.3	+1.4

Katie Volynets

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · rally	+3.0±1.8	+2.0	+1.0
FH to the middle · serve +1	+2.8±2.4	+1.9	+0.9
BH to the middle · rally	+2.7±1.7	+2.6	+0.1
FH to the middle · return	+2.7±2.3	+2.2	+0.5
BH to their backhand · return	+2.4±3.3	+3.9	−1.5
FH to their forehand · rally	+1.9±2.4	+2.4	−0.5

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	−5.8±4.4	−2.3	−3.6
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−3.2±4.7	+1.3	−4.5
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−1.3±3.9	−0.3	−1.0
BH to their forehand · rally	−0.5±3.8	+1.8	−2.4
FH to their forehand · return	−0.2±4.1	+2.4	−2.6

Against Katie Volynets-like opponents

Rebecca Marino v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	61.1%	41.8%
Players most similar to Katie Volynets	2	57.2%	35.1%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Marie Bouzkova, Daria Kasatkina, Emma Navarro, Emma Raducanu, Sloane Stephens, Lin Zhu, Zarina Diyas, Caroline Wozniacki, Tereza Martincova, Carla Suarez Navarro. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.