Game plan

Richard Krajicek v John Mcenroe

Every number combines what Richard Krajicek does well with what John Mcenroe allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Richard Krajicek wins, best of 3 68%90%: 50%–83% · best of 5: 72%

Serve points won 71.4% / 67.4% Richard / John · tour 65.7%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 69%serve 71.8% / 67.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Richard Krajicek's record against John Mcenroe's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −0.7 on serve, +0.1 on return vs expectation (2776 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	Richard	John
Direction choice	−0.02 ±0.09 better than 52%	−0.26 ±0.08 better than 9%
Shot selection	+0.82 ±0.24 better than 98%	+0.77 ±0.17 better than 98%
Execution	−1.17 ±0.53 better than 19%	−0.45 ±0.30 better than 46%
Points left on the table	4.60 ±0.22 lower than 1%	4.83 ±0.17 lower than 1%

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.

Richard Krajicek serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Richard wins	v John	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	84%	70%	82.4%±3.4	52% ▲
Body	9%	69%	63%	67.9%±8.0	0% ▼
T	52%	81%	72%	78.4%±3.7	48% ▼

Optimal v John Mcenroe: +0.9±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Richard wins	v John	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	81%	69%	78.2%±4.2	40% ▼
Body	8%	59%	65%	60.2%±8.6	0% ▼
T	47%	79%	72%	78.8%±3.6	60% ▲

Optimal v John Mcenroe: +0.9±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

John Mcenroe serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	John wins	v Richard	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	75%	76%	78.2%±3.8	43%
Body	17%	64%	63%	63.6%±7.7	4% ▼
T	40%	69%	79%	74.1%±4.0	53% ▲

Optimal v Richard Krajicek: +0.6±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	John wins	v Richard	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	52%	74%	79%	79.3%±3.3	65% ▲
Body	10%	64%	62%	62.8%±8.4	0% ▼
T	38%	78%	73%	79.5%±4.0	35% ▼

Optimal v Richard Krajicek: +1.1±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T 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.

Richard Krajicek returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v John	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−1.3	−4.0	−1.1±2.0
FH down the line	32%	+1.7	+1.6	−2.2	+1.1±3.3
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.5	+1.9	+5.4	+12.8±3.6
FH slice through the middle	4%	−4.2	−0.7	−0.5	−5.4±2.1
FH slice down the line	2%	−4.3	+0.7	±0.0	−3.6±1.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +10.5±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (619 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v John	Value
BH slice through the middle	27%	−4.2	±0.0	−3.4	−7.6±1.9
BH through the middle	21%	+6.4	−4.8	−4.5	−2.8±1.9
BH slice crosscourt	19%	+0.5	+2.0	+5.5	+8.0±2.6
BH down the line	12%	+4.2	−4.6	−1.8	−2.1±3.7
BH slice down the line	12%	−8.4	+4.2	−1.3	−5.5±3.3
BH crosscourt	9%	+8.8	±0.0	+3.6	+12.4±3.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +13.2±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (875 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v John	Value
FH through the middle	41%	−3.5	−2.9	−1.3	−7.6±2.4
FH down the line	32%	−1.8	−2.1	+0.9	−3.0±4.1
FH crosscourt	23%	−0.2	+0.6	+2.6	+2.9±3.8
FH slice through the middle	3%	−12.7	+0.9	±0.0	−11.7±1.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.7±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (149 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v John	Value
BH slice crosscourt	22%	−4.0	+0.8	−1.4	−4.6±2.5
BH through the middle	18%	−2.9	−2.7	+0.1	−5.4±2.0
BH slice through the middle	15%	−11.3	+0.2	−1.1	−12.1±2.4
BH slice down the line	14%	−9.3	+0.6	−0.8	−9.4±4.1
BH crosscourt	12%	+1.0	−0.6	+1.8	+2.2±2.7
FH inside-in	4%	+0.6	+3.2	+2.6	+6.3±3.6

Lean FH inside-in: +10.6±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (597 returns charted)

John Mcenroe returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Richard	Value
FH through the middle	47%	+4.3	+1.6	−1.5	+4.4±2.0
FH crosscourt	26%	+5.5	+5.7	+1.1	+12.3±3.6
FH down the line	20%	+1.7	+0.9	−0.1	+2.4±3.6
FH slice through the middle	2%	−4.2	+2.4	−0.9	−2.8±1.9
BH through the middle	1%	+6.6	+1.4	−1.7	+6.2±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.5±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (1163 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Richard	Value
BH through the middle	36%	+6.4	−2.3	−1.7	+2.4±1.9
BH down the line	25%	+4.2	+0.4	−2.0	+2.6±3.5
BH slice through the middle	16%	−4.2	+3.1	−2.4	−3.5±2.0
BH crosscourt	9%	+8.8	±0.0	−2.4	+6.3±3.2
BH slice down the line	9%	−8.4	+5.1	−1.7	−4.9±3.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.0±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (1830 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Richard	Value
FH crosscourt	37%	−0.2	+2.2	+5.0	+7.1±4.1
FH through the middle	36%	−3.5	−0.4	−2.2	−6.1±2.6
FH down the line	24%	−1.8	+1.3	−0.6	−1.1±4.5
FH slice down the line	2%	−9.4	−1.1	±0.0	−10.5±1.4
FH slice through the middle	2%	−12.7	+1.5	−0.1	−11.4±1.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +7.3±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (369 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Richard	Value
BH through the middle	32%	−2.9	+2.3	−2.0	−2.5±1.7
BH down the line	22%	−0.2	+3.5	+3.1	+6.4±3.6
BH crosscourt	18%	+1.0	+2.8	+2.4	+6.1±2.7
BH slice through the middle	8%	−11.3	+3.9	−2.7	−10.1±2.2
FH through the middle	6%	−2.9	+2.6	−2.2	−2.5±2.3
FH inside-in	5%	+0.6	+1.8	+5.0	+7.4±4.3

Lean FH inside-in: +6.4±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (1151 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.

Richard Krajicek

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return +1	+10.0±5.7	+4.3	+5.7
BH volley to their forehand · rally	+8.8±8.3	+2.3	+6.5
FH volley to their backhand · rally	+8.4±7.9	−2.0	+10.4
FH volley to their forehand · rally	+8.2±8.0	+8.2	−0.1
FH to their backhand · rally	+7.8±4.8	+6.1	+1.7
BH to their forehand · return	+6.6±5.4	+1.8	+4.8

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return +1	−11.3±5.2	−11.9	+0.7
BH to the middle · return +1	−10.5±3.2	−3.5	−6.9
BH to the middle · return	−9.5±2.5	−7.1	−2.4
FH to their forehand · rally	−7.0±5.2	−6.2	−0.8
FH to the middle · return +1	−6.2±4.1	−4.6	−1.6

John Mcenroe

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1	+9.9±6.8	+3.8	+6.1
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+9.0±5.5	+2.9	+6.0
BH slice to their forehand · return	+8.9±5.2	+4.8	+4.1
BH to their backhand · return +1	+7.2±5.0	−2.4	+9.6
FH to their backhand · rally	+5.3±4.9	+1.5	+3.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+5.3±5.7	+2.0	+3.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH volley to their forehand · rally	−6.6±7.8	−6.5	−0.1
FH to the middle · rally	−5.3±3.7	−3.3	−2.0
BH slice to their backhand · return	−4.6±4.0	−1.4	−3.2
BH to their forehand · rally	−4.5±6.0	−1.4	−3.2
BH to the middle · rally	−4.2±3.2	−4.2	−0.1

Against John Mcenroe-like opponents

Richard Krajicek v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	67.1%	32.2%
Players most similar to John Mcenroe	12	65.8%	33.2%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Mischa Zverev, Stefan Edberg, Max Mirnyi, Patrick Rafter, Todd Martin, Boris Becker, Michael Stich, Malivai Washington, David Wheaton, Pat Cash. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.