RallyIQ

Game plan

Sara Errani v Mirra Andreeva

Every number combines what Sara Errani does well with what Mirra Andreeva 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 6%90%: 1%–20% · best of 5: 3%
Serve points won 46.7% / 58.3% Sara / Mirra · tour 56.3%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 7%serve 47.5% / 58.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Mirra Andreeva's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −11.2 on serve, +2.0 on return vs expectation (245 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

CareerSaraMirra
Direction choice−0.23 ±0.11
better than 14%
+0.12 ±0.04
better than 75%
Shot selection−0.34 ±0.17
better than 19%
−0.43 ±0.08
better than 15%
Execution+1.67 ±0.48
better than 97%
+1.22 ±0.22
better than 95%
Points left on the table2.62 ±0.13
lower than 48%
2.42 ±0.06
lower than 73%

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, Mirra Andreeva +3.20. 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 serveNowSara winsv MirraMatchupOptimal
Wide35%54%60%47.3%±5.635%
Body45%50%56%47.9%±5.730% ▼
T20%53%61%45.6%±6.735% ▲

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving body every time would read +0.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowSara winsv MirraMatchupOptimal
Wide37%54%64%52.0%±5.337%
Body46%53%47%43.6%±5.831% ▼
T17%53%62%50.5%±7.932% ▲

Optimal v Mirra Andreeva: +0.6±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Mirra Andreeva serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMirra winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide51%69%60%63.8%±5.049% ▼
Body13%59%66%67.3%±7.10% ▼
T36%73%64%69.5%±5.351% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +0.4±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMirra winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide33%67%58%59.4%±6.018% ▼
Body21%61%54%59.3%±7.222%
T45%65%69%70.0%±5.160% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +1.0±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.8 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

ReturnNowTourOwnv MirraValue
FH through the middle42%+4.2+2.7+0.1+6.9±2.1
FH down the line23%+1.5+4.7−1.6+4.6±3.8
FH crosscourt16%+5.3+0.6−1.9+4.0±3.5
FH slice through the middle13%−6.7+0.5−0.9−7.1±2.2
FH slice down the line6%−10.5−0.1−0.7−11.2±3.3

Lean FH through the middle: +3.9±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (394 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MirraValue
BH through the middle37%+6.0+1.9−0.6+7.3±2.1
BH crosscourt34%+7.7+1.5−0.8+8.4±2.8
BH slice through the middle13%−6.2+1.7+0.1−4.5±2.4
BH slice crosscourt7%−4.2−0.1−2.7−6.9±2.9
BH slice down the line5%−12.5+0.5−1.8−13.8±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.5±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (315 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MirraValue
FH through the middle45%−3.2+2.0+0.4−0.8±2.6
FH crosscourt30%+0.5+0.3−2.9−2.0±3.9
FH down the line26%−0.6+0.9−2.2−1.9±4.6

Lean FH through the middle: +0.7±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MirraValue
BH crosscourt55%+1.5+1.4−0.1+2.8±2.9
BH through the middle29%−2.6+0.5+0.1−2.0±2.2
FH inside-out8%+1.4+0.6−2.2−0.3±3.4
FH through the middle4%−2.7+0.3+0.4−2.0±1.6
BH down the line3%−0.5−0.6−2.9−4.0±3.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 returns charted)

Mirra Andreeva returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH through the middle34%+4.2+1.5+0.5+6.2±2.0
FH down the line24%+1.5+3.1+6.0+10.6±3.3
FH slice through the middle19%−6.7+0.1+0.1−6.5±1.5
FH slice crosscourt11%−6.6+0.6±0.0−6.0±1.4
FH crosscourt8%+5.3−3.2+5.9+8.0±3.5

Lean FH down the line: +7.4±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (2589 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH through the middle46%+6.0+1.9+1.7+9.6±1.8
BH crosscourt24%+7.7+0.2+4.0+11.9±2.4
BH down the line14%+2.2+3.5+6.9+12.6±3.8
BH slice through the middle7%−6.2−2.0+0.7−7.5±1.9
BH slice crosscourt6%−4.2−2.7−0.4−7.3±2.6

Lean BH down the line: +4.8±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (1925 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH through the middle37%−3.2+1.0−0.9−3.1±2.7
FH down the line34%−0.6±0.0+7.1+6.5±4.5
FH crosscourt15%+0.5−5.4+3.9−1.0±4.3
BH through the middle5%−1.0+0.5−0.5−1.0±2.4
BH inside-in3%+2.0+0.6+0.3+2.9±3.8

Lean FH down the line: +6.3±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (743 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH through the middle37%−2.6+1.0−0.5−2.0±2.3
BH down the line31%−0.5+0.8+3.4+3.7±4.4
BH crosscourt25%+1.5−1.4+0.3+0.5±3.2
FH through the middle3%−2.7−1.2−0.9−4.8±2.7
FH inside-in2%+0.7+0.3+3.9+4.9±4.5

Lean FH inside-in: +4.4±4.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (1071 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.

Sara Errani

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return +1+5.1±2.3+3.2+1.9
BH to the middle · return +1+4.4±1.8+2.9+1.5
FH to their forehand · return +1+4.1±2.8+4.1±0.0
FH to the middle · rally+3.4±1.4+2.4+1.0
FH to the middle · return +1+2.7±2.2+1.7+1.0
BH to the middle · serve +1+2.6±1.7+1.9+0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their forehand · rally−6.5±3.1−1.9−4.6
FH slice to their backhand · rally−2.7±3.4+1.3−4.0
FH drop shot to their backhand · rally−2.7±5.4+1.2−3.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally−2.0±2.2−0.3−1.7
BH to their forehand · serve +1−1.0±3.9+0.4−1.5

Mirra Andreeva

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return+9.4±3.2+1.6+7.7
FH to their backhand · return+9.1±2.7+1.6+7.5
BH to their forehand · rally+8.6±2.3+3.4+5.2
BH to their backhand · return +1+6.6±2.3+2.9+3.7
BH to their forehand · return +1+6.0±3.6+2.0+4.0
BH to their backhand · return+6.0±2.0+1.2+4.8

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their forehand · rally−5.4±3.5−6.1+0.7
BH slice to their backhand · rally−1.3±2.2−1.0−0.3
BH to the middle · return +1−0.4±1.8+0.5−0.9
BH slice to the middle · rally−0.2±1.8+0.8−1.0
FH to the middle · serve +1+0.2±2.1+1.5−1.3

Against Mirra Andreeva-like opponents

Sara Errani vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–47.3%44.7%
Players most similar to Mirra Andreeva2 37.9%43.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Belinda Bencic, Elise Mertens, Sorana Cirstea, Victoria Azarenka, Simona Halep, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Christina Mchale, Timea Bacsinszky, Agnieszka Radwanska, Elena Dementieva. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.