Game plan

Rebecca Peterson v Tamara Zidansek

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

Forecast

Rebecca Peterson wins, best of 3 12%90%: 1%–53% · best of 5: 7%

Serve points won 52.8% / 61.6% Rebecca / Tamara · tour 58.1%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 12%serve 52.8% / 61.6%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Peterson's record against Tamara Zidansek'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	Rebecca	Tamara
Direction choice	−0.13 ±0.14 better than 31%	−0.10 ±0.09 better than 36%
Shot selection	+0.38 ±0.23 better than 88%	+0.29 ±0.17 better than 78%
Execution	−0.31 ±0.83 better than 44%	−0.43 ±0.41 better than 36%
Points left on the table	2.56 ±0.22 lower than 58%	2.62 ±0.11 lower than 49%

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.

Rebecca Peterson serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Rebecca wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	58%	68%	60.4%±8.7	47%
Body	21%	51%	52%	45.8%±11.0	6% ▼
T	31%	74%	64%	70.3%±9.0	47% ▲

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: +1.3±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +9.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Rebecca wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	31%	58%	63%	54.9%±9.8	31%
Body	35%	52%	62%	58.1%±10.4	20% ▼
T	34%	67%	62%	64.6%±9.9	49% ▲

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: +0.6±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Tamara Zidansek serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Rebecca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	64%	72%	69.9%±8.1	54% ▲
Body	34%	55%	59%	56.4%±9.4	19% ▼
T	26%	68%	69%	69.1%±9.7	27%

Optimal v Rebecca Peterson: +1.3±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Rebecca	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	63%	66%	64.0%±8.3	41%
Body	27%	52%	60%	56.2%±11.4	12% ▼
T	32%	64%	73%	72.7%±8.8	47% ▲

Optimal v Rebecca Peterson: +0.9±1.2 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +8.1 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 Peterson returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH through the middle	57%	+4.2	−1.1	+1.1	+4.1±2.8
FH crosscourt	24%	+5.3	−2.6	−2.9	−0.2±4.2
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	−1.9	+0.6	+0.2±4.4
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	−0.6	−0.5	−7.7±1.9

Lean FH through the middle: +2.2±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (139 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	47%	+6.0	+1.0	+2.0	+9.0±2.6
BH crosscourt	41%	+7.7	+0.9	+1.8	+10.4±3.4
BH down the line	8%	+2.2	+0.1	−3.0	−0.7±4.2
BH slice through the middle	4%	−6.2	+0.2	+1.4	−4.7±2.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (150 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH through the middle	48%	−3.2	+1.3	+2.5	+0.6±3.0
FH crosscourt	41%	+0.5	+2.5	−3.6	−0.6±4.4
FH down the line	11%	−0.6	+0.1	−1.1	−1.6±4.5

Lean FH through the middle: +0.8±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (64 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	40%	−2.6	+2.3	+1.4	+1.1±2.7
BH crosscourt	25%	+1.5	−1.6	+1.0	+0.9±3.5
FH through the middle	17%	−2.7	+1.2	+2.5	+1.1±2.4
FH inside-out	10%	+1.4	+0.8	−1.1	+1.0±3.7
FH inside-in	8%	+0.7	−0.2	−3.6	−3.1±4.0

Lean BH through the middle: +0.4±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (83 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Tamara Zidansek returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
FH through the middle	49%	+4.2	−0.6	+0.5	+4.0±2.9
FH down the line	21%	+1.5	−0.1	−2.0	−0.6±4.7
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.3	+0.5	+4.8	+10.6±4.3
FH slice through the middle	7%	−6.7	−1.9	−1.6	−10.3±2.1
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	+0.1	±0.0	−6.5±1.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +8.3±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (244 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
BH through the middle	52%	+6.0	+0.4	−1.1	+5.3±2.6
BH crosscourt	18%	+7.7	−0.5	+1.4	+8.6±3.7
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−0.9	+0.6	+1.8±4.5
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	−0.4	±0.0	−6.6±1.7
BH slice crosscourt	4%	−4.2	−0.4	±0.0	−4.5±1.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.9±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (334 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
FH through the middle	43%	−3.2	+2.4	−1.2	−2.0±3.1
FH crosscourt	29%	+0.5	+0.9	+1.2	+2.6±4.3
FH down the line	19%	−0.6	+1.0	−6.1	−5.7±4.8
FH slice through the middle	10%	−15.2	+0.3	±0.0	−14.9±1.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.3±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (91 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Rebecca	Value
BH through the middle	38%	−2.6	±0.0	+1.9	−0.7±2.8
BH crosscourt	23%	+1.5	−1.0	±0.0	+0.5±3.6
FH inside-out	12%	+1.4	+1.3	−6.1	−3.5±3.9
FH through the middle	11%	−2.7	+0.8	−1.2	−3.1±2.5
BH down the line	8%	−0.5	−0.1	−0.8	−1.4±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.4±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (130 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 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 Peterson

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return	+5.9±3.1	+2.4	+3.5
BH to their backhand · return	+5.1±4.2	+1.1	+4.0
BH to the middle · return +1	+3.9±2.5	+2.4	+1.6
FH to the middle · return	+3.6±3.2	+0.8	+2.8
BH to their forehand · rally	+3.4±4.4	+2.2	+1.3
FH to the middle · return +1	+2.9±2.7	+1.5	+1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	−8.6±4.7	−5.0	−3.7
BH to their backhand · return +1	−4.6±4.1	+0.1	−4.7
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.7±4.2	−0.4	−3.2
BH to their backhand · rally	−3.1±3.8	−1.2	−1.8
FH to their forehand · rally	−2.7±4.6	−1.1	−1.7

Tamara Zidansek

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.5±4.5	+2.8	+2.6
FH to their forehand · return	+4.5±4.3	−0.2	+4.6
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.3±4.6	+4.1	+0.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.2±3.8	+1.0	+3.1
BH to the middle · return	+2.4±3.0	+2.1	+0.3
BH to their backhand · rally	+2.3±3.6	+0.6	+1.7

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	−5.3±5.3	−0.4	−5.0
FH to the middle · return +1	−4.3±2.7	−3.4	−0.9
FH to their backhand · return +1	−3.3±5.0	−2.3	−1.0
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−1.7±4.7	−5.0	+3.3
FH to the middle · return	−1.3±3.3	−1.2	±0.0

Against Tamara Zidansek-like opponents

Rebecca Peterson v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	53.3%	39.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Bianca Andreescu, Suzan Lamens, Jasmine Paolini, Daria Kasatkina, Nadia Podoroska, Yafan Wang, Nao Hibino, Mayar Sherif, Daria Saville. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.