Game plan

Sara Errani v Emma Raducanu

Every number combines what Sara Errani does well with what Emma Raducanu allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Sara Errani wins, best of 3 23%90%: 8%–49% · best of 5: 18%

Serve points won 49.9% / 55.4% Sara / Emma · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 23%serve 49.9% / 55.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Sara Errani's record against Emma Raducanu'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	Sara	Emma
Direction choice	−0.23 ±0.11 better than 14%	−0.02 ±0.05 better than 50%
Shot selection	−0.34 ±0.17 better than 19%	−0.09 ±0.09 better than 35%
Execution	+1.67 ±0.48 better than 97%	+0.76 ±0.31 better than 86%
Points left on the table	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 48%	2.53 ±0.07 lower than 63%

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: Sara Errani +2.08, Emma Raducanu +2.78. 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.

Sara Errani serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Emma	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	35%	54%	64%	51.8%±6.1	35%
Body	45%	50%	57%	48.7%±5.8	30% ▼
T	20%	53%	68%	52.7%±7.4	35% ▲

Optimal v Emma Raducanu: +0.6±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Emma	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	37%	54%	64%	52.1%±5.9	22% ▼
Body	46%	53%	59%	56.4%±6.1	55% ▲
T	17%	53%	64%	52.6%±8.4	23% ▲

Optimal v Emma Raducanu: +0.2±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Emma Raducanu serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Emma wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	46%	68%	60%	62.9%±5.4	59% ▲
Body	25%	56%	66%	64.8%±7.3	10% ▼
T	29%	68%	64%	63.6%±6.5	31% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +0.2±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +1.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Emma wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	71%	58%	63.8%±6.1	45%
Body	17%	51%	54%	48.4%±8.2	1% ▼
T	39%	63%	69%	67.9%±5.7	54% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +1.4±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.1 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.

Sara Errani returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
FH through the middle	42%	+4.2	+2.7	+2.2	+9.0±2.2
FH down the line	23%	+1.5	+4.7	−0.9	+5.3±4.2
FH crosscourt	16%	+5.3	+0.6	+0.7	+6.7±3.8
FH slice through the middle	13%	−6.7	+0.5	+2.1	−4.1±2.4
FH slice down the line	6%	−10.5	−0.1	+0.7	−9.9±3.2

Lean FH through the middle: +4.0±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (394 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
BH through the middle	37%	+6.0	+1.9	−1.0	+6.9±2.2
BH crosscourt	34%	+7.7	+1.5	−0.8	+8.5±3.0
BH slice through the middle	13%	−6.2	+1.7	−1.0	−5.6±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	7%	−4.2	−0.1	−0.6	−4.9±2.9
BH slice down the line	5%	−12.5	+0.5	−3.0	−15.0±3.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (315 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
FH through the middle	45%	−3.2	+2.0	−1.6	−2.8±2.6
FH crosscourt	30%	+0.5	+0.3	+1.9	+2.7±4.0
FH down the line	26%	−0.6	+0.9	−1.2	−0.9±4.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.4±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Emma	Value
BH crosscourt	55%	+1.5	+1.4	−1.4	+1.5±3.3
BH through the middle	29%	−2.6	+0.5	−1.2	−3.3±2.5
FH inside-out	8%	+1.4	+0.6	−1.2	+0.7±3.7
FH through the middle	4%	−2.7	+0.3	−1.6	−4.0±1.7
BH down the line	3%	−0.5	−0.6	+0.7	−0.4±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 returns charted)

Emma Raducanu returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	46%	+4.2	+2.0	+0.5	+6.7±2.2
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.3	+1.9	+5.9	+13.1±3.5
FH down the line	14%	+1.5	+5.0	+6.0	+12.6±4.0
FH slice through the middle	12%	−6.7	+0.8	+0.1	−5.8±2.0
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	+0.8	±0.0	−5.8±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.8±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (954 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	47%	+6.0	+2.7	+1.7	+10.4±2.0
BH crosscourt	28%	+7.7	+3.2	+4.0	+14.9±2.7
BH slice through the middle	11%	−6.2	+0.7	+0.7	−4.8±2.0
BH down the line	10%	+2.2	+2.5	+6.9	+11.6±4.4
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	+0.8	−0.4	−3.8±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.6±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (834 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	47%	−3.2	+2.1	−0.9	−1.9±3.0
FH crosscourt	34%	+0.5	−0.1	+3.9	+4.3±4.4
FH down the line	17%	−0.6	−0.2	+7.1	+6.3±5.2
FH slice through the middle	2%	−15.2	+0.7	±0.0	−14.5±1.1

Lean FH down the line: +4.9±4.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (254 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	44%	−2.6	−0.5	−0.5	−3.6±2.4
BH crosscourt	41%	+1.5	+0.3	+0.3	+2.1±3.3
BH down the line	14%	−0.5	−2.5	+3.4	+0.3±5.2
BH slice through the middle	1%	−11.7	−0.6	±0.0	−12.3±1.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.9±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (470 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 clay. Each player's clay record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Sara Errani

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+7.6±4.6	+3.6	+4.0
FH to their forehand · return +1	+7.3±4.6	+4.1	+3.2
FH to their backhand · rally	+6.4±3.1	+2.1	+4.2
BH to their backhand · return +1	+5.4±3.9	+3.4	+1.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+5.4±4.4	+4.2	+1.2
FH to their forehand · rally	+4.5±3.1	+2.3	+2.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	−4.0±4.6	+1.4	−5.5
BH slice to their forehand · rally	−2.9±5.0	−2.9	±0.0
BH slice to the middle · rally	−1.8±3.1	+1.3	−3.2
FH to the middle · return +1	−1.1±3.5	+1.9	−3.0
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−0.7±3.6	−1.1	+0.4

Emma Raducanu

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	+9.8±4.6	+1.0	+8.7
FH to their forehand · return	+8.8±4.6	+1.8	+6.9
BH to their forehand · return	+8.8±5.5	−0.4	+9.2
BH to their backhand · return	+7.2±3.1	+1.7	+5.5
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.1±3.0	+2.6	+2.5
BH to their forehand · return +1	+4.5±6.0	+2.9	+1.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · return +1	−2.5±2.9	−1.3	−1.1
BH slice to the middle · rally	−2.0±3.0	−0.5	−1.4
FH to the middle · serve +1	−1.4±3.2	+0.7	−2.1
BH to their forehand · rally	−1.1±4.4	−3.9	+2.8
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−1.0±3.4	−0.4	−0.6

Against Emma Raducanu-like opponents

Sara Errani v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	47.3%	44.7%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Coco Gauff, Iva Jovic, Anna Kalinskaya, Anna Blinkova, Marie Bouzkova, Kimberly Birrell, Emma Navarro, Nao Hibino, Lin Zhu, Andrea Petkovic. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.