Game plan
Sara Errani v Laura Siegemund
Every number combines what Sara Errani does well with what Laura Siegemund allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Laura Siegemund'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 | Laura |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | −0.23 ±0.11 better than 14% | −0.01 ±0.09 better than 52% |
| Shot selection | −0.34 ±0.17 better than 19% | −0.15 ±0.31 better than 32% |
| Execution | +1.67 ±0.48 better than 97% | −1.01 ±0.57 better than 17% |
| Points left on the table | 2.62 ±0.13 lower than 48% | 2.66 ±0.08 lower than 41% |
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 +1.21, Laura Siegemund +1.06. 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 Laura | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 35% | 54% | 66% | 54.4%±7.2 | 50% ▲ |
| Body | 45% | 50% | 61% | 53.3%±8.0 | 30% ▼ |
| T | 20% | 53% | 71% | 56.9%±9.0 | 20% |
Optimal v Laura Siegemund: +0.9±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Sara wins | v Laura | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 37% | 54% | 67% | 55.5%±7.3 | 37% |
| Body | 46% | 53% | 53% | 49.5%±7.9 | 31% ▼ |
| T | 17% | 53% | 64% | 52.9%±9.7 | 32% ▲ |
Optimal v Laura Siegemund: +0.7±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Laura Siegemund serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Laura wins | v Sara | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 38% | 61% | 60% | 54.9%±7.1 | 24% ▼ |
| Body | 38% | 57% | 66% | 65.4%±7.7 | 37% |
| T | 24% | 65% | 64% | 60.2%±8.4 | 39% ▲ |
Optimal v Sara Errani: +0.1±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +5.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Laura wins | v Sara | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 30% | 57% | 58% | 49.0%±8.0 | 27% ▼ |
| Body | 34% | 53% | 54% | 51.1%±8.6 | 22% ▼ |
| T | 36% | 59% | 69% | 64.3%±7.2 | 51% ▲ |
Optimal v Sara Errani: +1.0±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +9.1 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 Laura | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 42% | +4.2 | +2.7 | +1.0 | +7.8±2.5 |
| FH down the line | 23% | +1.5 | +4.7 | +1.1 | +7.3±4.4 |
| FH crosscourt | 16% | +5.3 | +0.6 | +0.6 | +6.5±4.0 |
| FH slice through the middle | 13% | −6.7 | +0.5 | +0.5 | −5.7±2.5 |
| FH slice down the line | 6% | −10.5 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −10.6±2.2 |
Lean FH through the middle: +3.2±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (394 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Laura | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 37% | +6.0 | +1.9 | −0.1 | +7.8±2.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 34% | +7.7 | +1.5 | −1.0 | +8.2±3.3 |
| BH slice through the middle | 13% | −6.2 | +1.7 | −0.4 | −4.9±2.3 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 7% | −4.2 | −0.1 | −0.9 | −5.2±2.3 |
| BH slice down the line | 5% | −12.5 | +0.5 | −0.7 | −12.7±2.6 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.2±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (315 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Laura | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 45% | −3.2 | +2.0 | −1.7 | −2.8±3.0 |
| FH crosscourt | 30% | +0.5 | +0.3 | −1.7 | −0.9±4.4 |
| FH down the line | 26% | −0.6 | +0.9 | −3.1 | −2.7±5.1 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +1.3±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Laura | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 55% | +1.5 | +1.4 | −1.5 | +1.4±3.6 |
| BH through the middle | 29% | −2.6 | +0.5 | −1.1 | −3.2±2.8 |
| FH inside-out | 8% | +1.4 | +0.6 | −3.1 | −1.1±3.9 |
| FH through the middle | 4% | −2.7 | +0.3 | −1.7 | −4.1±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 3% | −0.5 | −0.6 | +2.0 | +0.8±4.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.8±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Laura Siegemund returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 37% | +4.2 | −2.3 | +0.5 | +2.4±2.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 20% | +5.3 | −4.3 | +5.9 | +6.9±3.9 |
| FH down the line | 17% | +1.5 | +1.4 | +6.0 | +8.9±4.3 |
| FH slice through the middle | 13% | −6.7 | −0.8 | +0.1 | −7.4±2.1 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 9% | −6.6 | +0.7 | ±0.0 | −5.9±2.0 |
Lean FH down the line: +7.0±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (385 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 45% | +6.0 | +1.0 | +1.7 | +8.6±2.4 |
| BH crosscourt | 23% | +7.7 | −2.1 | +4.0 | +9.6±3.1 |
| BH slice through the middle | 12% | −6.2 | −2.8 | +0.7 | −8.3±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 9% | +2.2 | −2.0 | +6.9 | +7.1±4.4 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 5% | −4.2 | −0.2 | −0.4 | −4.8±2.5 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (311 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 34% | −3.2 | −1.4 | −0.9 | −5.4±3.1 |
| FH crosscourt | 26% | +0.5 | −1.0 | +3.9 | +3.5±4.3 |
| FH slice crosscourt | 15% | −14.9 | +0.3 | ±0.0 | −14.6±1.6 |
| FH down the line | 14% | −0.6 | −0.2 | +7.1 | +6.4±4.6 |
| FH slice through the middle | 10% | −15.2 | −0.9 | ±0.0 | −16.1±1.3 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +7.4±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (87 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sara | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 40% | −2.6 | −0.5 | −0.5 | −3.6±2.7 |
| BH crosscourt | 36% | +1.5 | −1.2 | +0.3 | +0.6±3.7 |
| BH down the line | 20% | −0.5 | +3.1 | +3.4 | +5.9±5.1 |
| FH through the middle | 4% | −2.7 | +0.4 | −0.9 | −3.2±2.2 |
Lean BH down the line: +6.1±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (138 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.
Sara Errani
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | +6.3±3.1 | +3.2 | +3.2 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | +5.3±3.4 | +4.1 | +1.2 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +4.9±2.3 | +2.9 | +2.0 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +4.2±4.0 | +3.7 | +0.6 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | +3.4±2.4 | +2.9 | +0.4 |
| BH to the middle · return | +2.7±2.0 | +1.9 | +0.8 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to their forehand · serve +1 | −2.8±4.7 | +0.4 | −3.3 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | −1.9±3.5 | +3.0 | −4.9 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −1.4±3.9 | +0.4 | −1.8 |
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | −0.7±3.1 | +2.2 | −2.9 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −0.4±2.3 | +1.7 | −2.1 |
Laura Siegemund
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return | +8.8±3.6 | +1.2 | +7.5 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +8.3±3.4 | +3.1 | +5.2 |
| BH to their forehand · return | +7.3±4.1 | −0.4 | +7.7 |
| BH to the middle · return | +4.4±2.1 | +1.1 | +3.4 |
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | +3.3±4.6 | −0.8 | +4.0 |
| FH to their forehand · return | +3.0±3.6 | −3.6 | +6.6 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.2±3.4 | −3.1 | −1.1 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | −2.1±2.3 | −1.2 | −0.9 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.3±2.3 | −2.4 | +1.1 |
| BH slice to the middle · rally | −1.0±2.2 | −0.1 | −1.0 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | −0.8±3.8 | −2.6 | +1.7 |
Against Laura Siegemund-like opponents
| Sara Errani v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 47.3% | 44.7% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Bianca Andreescu, Camila Osorio, Antonia Ruzic, Aliaksandra Sasnovich, Anastasija Sevastova, Su Wei Hsieh, Kateryna Baindl, Kristina Mladenovic, Sabine Lisicki, Timea Bacsinszky. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.