Game plan

Roman Safiullin v Miomir Kecmanovic

Every number combines what Roman Safiullin does well with what Miomir Kecmanovic allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Roman Safiullin wins, best of 3 35%90%: 14%–63% · best of 5: 32%

Serve points won 61.0% / 64.0% Roman / Miomir · tour 63.4%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 40%serve 61.6% / 63.5%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Roman Safiullin's record against Miomir Kecmanovic's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −8.3 on serve, −8.7 on return vs expectation (189 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	Roman	Miomir
Direction choice	+0.11 ±0.07 better than 83%	−0.06 ±0.09 better than 43%
Shot selection	+0.42 ±0.20 better than 88%	−0.28 ±0.10 better than 25%
Execution	−0.74 ±0.73 better than 35%	+1.00 ±0.38 better than 95%
Points left on the table	2.11 ±0.16 lower than 98%	2.31 ±0.15 lower than 84%

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: Roman Safiullin +1.05, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.29. 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.

Roman Safiullin serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Roman wins	v Miomir	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	51%	70%	76%	73.3%±5.2	45% ▼
Body	7%	49%	58%	43.6%±11.8	0% ▼
T	42%	73%	80%	78.1%±5.5	55% ▲

Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +0.9±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Roman wins	v Miomir	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	75%	73%	76.0%±5.6	60% ▲
Body	15%	63%	58%	57.9%±11.1	2% ▼
T	38%	66%	73%	67.0%±6.7	38%

Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +1.2±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +6.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Miomir Kecmanovic serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Miomir wins	v Roman	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	68%	73%	67.4%±6.2	42%
Body	16%	61%	66%	63.3%±10.3	2% ▼
T	43%	73%	77%	75.6%±5.5	56% ▲

Optimal v Roman Safiullin: +0.9±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Miomir wins	v Roman	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	45%	71%	74%	72.8%±5.8	58% ▲
Body	14%	65%	64%	66.0%±10.6	1% ▼
T	41%	68%	75%	71.3%±6.6	41%

Optimal v Roman Safiullin: +0.9±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +1.6 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.

Roman Safiullin returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Miomir	Value
FH through the middle	39%	+4.3	+2.3	+1.1	+7.7±2.4
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−0.4	+4.0	+9.1±4.1
FH slice through the middle	17%	−4.2	−0.7	+0.5	−4.4±2.3
FH down the line	10%	+1.7	−1.2	+1.8	+2.3±4.0
FH slice crosscourt	10%	−4.3	−0.3	+1.3	−3.3±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.7±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (282 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Miomir	Value
BH crosscourt	40%	+8.8	−0.3	+1.4	+10.0±2.9
BH through the middle	39%	+6.4	−1.6	+2.4	+7.3±2.2
BH down the line	8%	+4.2	−0.8	−0.5	+3.0±4.5
BH slice through the middle	6%	−4.2	−1.5	+0.9	−4.8±2.2
BH slice crosscourt	5%	+0.5	−0.2	−0.8	−0.5±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.3±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (323 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Miomir	Value
FH through the middle	47%	−3.5	+1.5	−0.1	−2.1±2.5
FH crosscourt	32%	−0.2	−2.4	+3.3	+0.7±4.0
FH down the line	15%	−1.8	−0.8	+3.7	+1.1±4.0
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−12.5	−2.2	±0.0	−14.7±1.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.2±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (75 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Miomir	Value
BH crosscourt	51%	+1.0	−1.7	+0.4	−0.4±2.8
BH through the middle	38%	−2.9	−1.5	+0.3	−4.1±2.1
BH down the line	10%	−0.2	+0.4	+0.1	+0.3±4.5

Lean BH down the line: +2.1±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (175 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Miomir Kecmanovic returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Roman	Value
FH through the middle	51%	+4.3	+2.7	+0.9	+7.8±2.3
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.5	+0.3	+3.0	+8.7±4.1
FH down the line	13%	+1.7	+4.3	+1.2	+7.2±4.3
FH slice through the middle	10%	−4.2	−0.1	−0.5	−4.8±2.3
FH slice down the line	3%	−4.3	−0.3	+1.9	−2.6±2.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.6±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (845 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Roman	Value
BH crosscourt	37%	+8.8	+3.2	+0.2	+12.2±3.1
BH through the middle	35%	+6.4	+1.6	+0.6	+8.6±2.4
BH slice through the middle	13%	−4.2	−0.2	−0.8	−5.2±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	9%	+0.5	+0.5	±0.0	+1.0±2.9
BH down the line	5%	+4.2	+0.7	±0.0	+4.9±4.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.2±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (721 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Roman	Value
FH through the middle	56%	−3.5	+0.6	+1.3	−1.6±2.7
FH crosscourt	28%	−0.2	+2.8	+2.1	+4.7±4.4
FH down the line	16%	−1.8	+1.1	+0.9	+0.2±4.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Roman	Value
BH crosscourt	46%	+1.0	+2.0	−1.6	+1.4±2.9
BH through the middle	42%	−2.9	+1.8	+0.7	−0.4±2.2
BH down the line	6%	−0.2	+0.5	−0.2	±0.0±4.9
FH through the middle	3%	−2.9	+0.9	+1.3	−0.7±2.1
FH inside-in	2%	+0.6	+2.6	+2.1	+5.3±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.0±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (550 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.

Roman Safiullin

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	+5.2±3.1	+2.1	+3.0
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.4±2.7	+2.2	+2.2
FH to the middle · return	+3.5±2.0	+2.9	+0.6
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+3.5±2.6	−0.3	+3.7
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.5±2.1	−1.6	+4.1
FH to their backhand · rally	+2.3±2.0	+1.9	+0.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · return	−2.4±4.3	−1.7	−0.7
BH to their backhand · rally	−2.2±1.7	−3.0	+0.8
BH to their forehand · return +1	−1.0±4.7	−1.5	+0.4
FH to their forehand · return +1	−1.0±3.6	+0.1	−1.1
BH to their backhand · return +1	−0.5±2.7	−0.6	+0.2

Miomir Kecmanovic

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	+5.8±3.6	+4.5	+1.3
FH to their backhand · rally	+5.3±2.1	+1.6	+3.7
FH to their forehand · return	+5.1±3.9	+2.0	+3.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.1±3.0	+2.6	+1.5
FH to their forehand · rally	+3.3±2.1	+2.8	+0.5
BH to their forehand · rally	+3.1±3.4	+3.2	−0.1

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return +1	−0.3±2.9	+0.9	−1.1
BH slice to the middle · rally	±0.0±2.2	−0.7	+0.7
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+0.2±2.6	+0.4	−0.2
FH to their backhand · return +1	+0.7±3.7	−0.3	+1.0
BH to the middle · return +1	+0.9±2.3	+0.8	±0.0

Against Miomir Kecmanovic-like opponents

Roman Safiullin v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	61.3%	32.7%
Players most similar to Miomir Kecmanovic	2	48.1%	22.4%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alex De Minaur, Gael Monfils, Botic Van De Zandschulp, Novak Djokovic, Marcos Giron, Taylor Fritz, Nuno Borges, Arthur Cazaux, Emil Ruusuvuori, Ilya Ivashka. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.