RallyIQ

Game plan

Robby Ginepri v Daniel Evans

Every number combines what Robby Ginepri does well with what Daniel Evans allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Robby Ginepri wins, best of 3 23%90%: 6%–54% · best of 5: 18%
Serve points won 59.8% / 65.5% Robby / Daniel · tour 63.4%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 23%serve 59.8% / 65.5%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Robby Ginepri's record against Daniel Evans'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

CareerRobbyDaniel
Direction choice−0.03 ±0.14
better than 49%
−0.03 ±0.17
better than 48%
Shot selection+0.10 ±0.46
better than 65%
−1.18 ±0.22
better than 1%
Execution−0.54 ±1.03
better than 43%
+0.37 ±0.40
better than 81%

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.

Robby Ginepri serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowRobby winsv DanielMatchupOptimal
Wide52%65%71%62.6%±8.465% ▲
Body9%64%63%63.8%±13.50% ▼
T40%74%73%71.9%±9.035% ▼

Optimal v Daniel Evans: +0.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowRobby winsv DanielMatchupOptimal
Wide42%65%70%62.1%±9.655% ▲
Body8%58%66%61.0%±14.30% ▼
T51%62%65%54.7%±9.545% ▼

Optimal v Daniel Evans: +0.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Daniel Evans serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowDaniel winsv RobbyMatchupOptimal
Wide31%74%77%78.2%±7.444% ▲
Body12%62%62%60.3%±13.60% ▼
T57%73%77%74.7%±8.956%

Optimal v Robby Ginepri: +0.9±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowDaniel winsv RobbyMatchupOptimal
Wide56%73%77%77.0%±7.869% ▲
Body9%57%70%63.7%±14.60% ▼
T34%67%78%74.4%±9.831% ▼

Optimal v Robby Ginepri: +0.7±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.1 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.

Robby Ginepri returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv DanielValue
FH crosscourt38%+5.5−2.4±0.0+3.0±4.3
FH through the middle32%+4.3−1.0+0.9+4.2±2.6
FH slice crosscourt13%−4.3−1.0−0.4−5.7±2.0
FH down the line10%+1.7−1.1+5.9+6.5±3.8
FH slice through the middle7%−4.2+0.4−0.3−4.2±2.0

Lean FH through the middle: +2.1±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (84 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv DanielValue
BH crosscourt46%+8.8+0.1+1.0+9.9±3.2
BH through the middle32%+6.4−0.5+1.5+7.5±2.3
BH down the line22%+4.2−4.5+3.0+2.8±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.3±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (65 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv DanielValue
BH crosscourt56%+1.0+1.7+1.0+3.8±3.0
BH through the middle23%−2.9−0.3+0.5−2.7±2.1
BH down the line21%−0.2−2.4+5.3+2.7±4.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.7±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (75 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Daniel Evans returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv RobbyValue
FH through the middle41%+4.3+1.7−0.6+5.3±2.8
FH down the line24%+1.7+1.8+1.7+5.2±4.3
FH slice through the middle14%−4.2+0.2±0.0−4.0±1.7
FH crosscourt13%+5.5−1.0+1.2+5.7±4.4
FH slice down the line6%−4.3+1.8±0.0−2.5±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.3±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (455 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv RobbyValue
BH slice through the middle43%−4.2+0.5−1.3−5.0±2.1
BH slice crosscourt27%+0.5+1.6±0.0+2.1±2.8
BH through the middle12%+6.4+0.9−0.2+7.0±2.8
BH slice down the line7%−8.4+0.3±0.0−8.1±2.5
BH crosscourt6%+8.8−0.6−1.4+6.8±3.4

Lean BH through the middle: +7.8±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (580 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv RobbyValue
FH through the middle51%−3.5−0.4+1.2−2.7±2.7
FH down the line32%−1.8+0.9+0.2−0.7±4.4
FH crosscourt17%−0.2+3.4+0.9+4.0±3.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.0±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (103 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv RobbyValue
BH slice crosscourt35%−4.0−2.1−0.4−6.5±2.2
BH slice through the middle25%−11.3−1.2+0.6−11.9±2.2
BH through the middle10%−2.9+0.5−1.4−3.8±2.5
FH through the middle9%−2.9−0.5+1.2−2.2±2.3
FH inside-out8%+1.0+1.1+0.2+2.2±3.5

Lean FH inside-out: +8.1±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (442 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.

Robby Ginepri

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return+1.2±2.9−0.4+1.6
BH to the middle · rally−1.2±2.1−0.3−0.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.4±3.3−0.2−1.2
FH to their backhand · rally−1.5±2.7−0.6−0.8
BH to their backhand · rally−2.4±2.3−1.2−1.3
FH to the middle · rally−2.6±2.2−1.7−0.8

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1−5.7±3.7−3.1−2.6
FH to their forehand · rally−4.5±3.0−2.3−2.2
BH to their forehand · rally−4.0±3.8−2.6−1.4
BH to their backhand · serve +1−3.7±3.1−0.3−3.5
FH to the middle · rally−2.6±2.2−1.7−0.8

Daniel Evans

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · rally+5.4±2.7+2.7+2.7
BH to their forehand · rally+4.2±4.3+2.2+2.0
FH to their backhand · serve +1+4.1±3.3+1.2+2.8
FH to their forehand · rally+3.7±3.0+2.0+1.7
BH to their backhand · rally+2.4±2.8+1.9+0.4
FH to the middle · return+1.1±2.6+0.5+0.6

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · rally−2.2±2.3−0.3−1.9
FH to the middle · return+1.1±2.6+0.5+0.6
BH to their backhand · rally+2.4±2.8+1.9+0.4
FH to their forehand · rally+3.7±3.0+2.0+1.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1+4.1±3.3+1.2+2.8

Against Daniel Evans-like opponents

Robby Ginepri vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–57.9%28.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Lorenzo Musetti, Grigor Dimitrov, Christopher Oconnell, Corentin Moutet, Steve Johnson, Nicolas Mahut, Guillermo Garcia Lopez, Mikhail Youzhny, Tommy Haas, Fernando Gonzalez. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.