RallyIQ

Game plan

Sara Errani v Serena Williams

Every number combines what Sara Errani does well with what Serena Williams 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 2%90%: 0%–8% · best of 5: 0%
Serve points won 46.9% / 62.5% Sara / Serena · tour 56.3%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 3%serve 47.6% / 61.6%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Serena Williams's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −4.6 on serve, −5.3 on return vs expectation (341 points); head-to-head: −2.0 on serve, −3.3 on return vs expectation (476 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

CareerSaraSerena
Direction choice−0.23 ±0.11
better than 14%
+0.34 ±0.04
better than 97%
Shot selection−0.34 ±0.17
better than 19%
+0.47 ±0.05
better than 93%
Execution+1.67 ±0.48
better than 97%
−0.04 ±0.27
better than 59%
Points left on the table2.62 ±0.13
lower than 48%
2.20 ±0.07
lower than 94%

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 +1.67, Serena Williams +1.98. 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 SerenaMatchupOptimal
Wide35%54%65%52.6%±5.750% ▲
Body45%50%53%45.3%±5.130% ▼
T20%53%66%50.5%±6.720%

Optimal v Serena Williams: +1.1±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +3.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowSara winsv SerenaMatchupOptimal
Wide37%54%66%54.4%±5.347% ▲
Body46%53%57%54.1%±5.251% ▲
T17%53%61%49.7%±7.92% ▼

Optimal v Serena Williams: +0.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Serena Williams serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowSerena winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide50%70%60%65.1%±4.943% ▼
Body8%62%66%69.9%±7.20% ▼
T42%79%64%76.2%±4.657% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +0.4±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +6.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowSerena winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide45%75%58%68.4%±5.336% ▼
Body6%60%54%57.8%±8.40% ▼
T49%70%69%73.9%±4.764% ▲

Optimal v Sara Errani: +1.2±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.5 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 SerenaValue
FH through the middle42%+4.2+2.7−1.3+5.5±2.1
FH down the line23%+1.5+4.7−1.4+4.8±3.8
FH crosscourt16%+5.3+0.6−4.0+2.0±3.5
FH slice through the middle13%−6.7+0.5+2.1−4.1±2.3
FH slice down the line6%−10.5−0.1+0.9−9.6±3.3

Lean FH through the middle: +2.9±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (394 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SerenaValue
BH through the middle37%+6.0+1.9−1.0+6.9±2.2
BH crosscourt34%+7.7+1.5−0.2+9.0±3.0
BH slice through the middle13%−6.2+1.7−0.2−4.8±2.3
BH slice crosscourt7%−4.2−0.1−2.8−7.1±2.8
BH slice down the line5%−12.5+0.5−1.2−13.2±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.1±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (315 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SerenaValue
FH through the middle45%−3.2+2.0−0.9−2.1±2.5
FH crosscourt30%+0.5+0.3−3.0−2.1±3.7
FH down the line26%−0.6+0.9+0.6+1.0±4.4

Lean FH down the line: +2.3±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SerenaValue
BH crosscourt55%+1.5+1.4−0.2+2.7±2.9
BH through the middle29%−2.6+0.5−0.3−2.4±2.2
FH inside-out8%+1.4+0.6+0.6+2.5±3.2
FH through the middle4%−2.7+0.3−0.9−3.3±1.6
BH down the line3%−0.5−0.6−2.1−3.2±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.9±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (146 returns charted)

Serena Williams returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH through the middle49%+4.2−2.6+0.5+2.1±2.0
FH crosscourt36%+5.3−1.6+5.9+9.6±2.9
FH down the line11%+1.5−0.4+6.0+7.1±3.7
BH through the middle1%+5.2−3.4+1.7+3.5±2.5
FH slice through the middle1%−6.7−0.7+0.1−7.3±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.2±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (2166 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH through the middle48%+6.0+0.3+1.7+7.9±1.8
BH crosscourt33%+7.7+1.3+4.0+13.1±2.2
BH down the line12%+2.2+1.1+6.9+10.2±3.9
BH slice through the middle3%−6.2−4.5+0.7−10.0±2.1
BH slice crosscourt2%−4.2−2.8−0.4−7.4±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.2±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (1939 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH crosscourt43%+0.5−0.5+3.9+3.9±3.8
FH through the middle37%−3.2−0.1−0.9−4.1±2.7
FH down the line18%−0.6+5.3+7.1+11.8±4.9
BH inside-in1%+2.0−1.4+0.3+0.9±3.5
BH through the middle1%−1.0−0.2−0.5−1.7±2.1

Lean FH down the line: +9.6±4.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (750 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH crosscourt51%+1.5+0.9+0.3+2.7±3.0
BH through the middle30%−2.6−1.8−0.5−4.9±2.3
BH down the line17%−0.5+3.4+3.4+6.2±4.8
FH inside-in1%+0.7+0.7+3.9+5.3±4.0
FH inside-out1%+1.4+0.2+7.1+8.6±3.6

Lean BH down the line: +5.2±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (954 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

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return +1+5.7±2.8+4.1+1.6
BH to their backhand · return +1+5.2±2.4+3.2+2.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1+3.4±2.9+3.0+0.4
BH slice to the middle · rally+3.3±1.9+1.5+1.7
FH to the middle · serve +1+3.0±1.9+2.9+0.1
BH to their forehand · rally+3.0±3.1+3.7−0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return−2.3±3.2+1.4−3.6
BH slice to their forehand · rally−1.8±3.4−1.9±0.0
FH to their backhand · return +1−0.3±3.1+0.4−0.7
BH slice to their backhand · rally−0.2±2.3−0.3±0.0
BH to the middle · return−0.1±1.7+1.9−2.1

Serena Williams

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return+10.4±2.8+2.9+7.5
BH to their forehand · return+9.5±3.2+1.8+7.7
FH to their forehand · return+6.7±2.6+0.1+6.6
BH to their backhand · return+5.9±1.9+1.1+4.8
BH to their forehand · rally+5.5±2.4+0.3+5.2
FH to their forehand · serve +1+5.1±2.7+1.4+3.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return +1−4.0±2.6−3.0−1.1
BH slice to their forehand · rally−3.8±3.6−4.5+0.7
BH slice to the middle · rally−3.2±2.1−2.3−1.0
BH slice to their backhand · rally−3.2±2.5−2.9−0.3
BH to the middle · return +1−2.7±1.8−1.8−0.9

Against Serena Williams-like opponents

Sara Errani vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–47.3%44.7%
Players most similar to Serena Williams3 46.3%35.5%
Serena Williams (charted head-to-head)4 45.7%35.1%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Naomi Osaka, Karolina Pliskova, Ekaterina Alexandrova, Sorana Cirstea, Elena Gabriela Ruse, Veronika Kudermetova, Anett Kontaveit, Daniela Hantuchova, Jelena Dokic, Lindsay Davenport. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.

Charted head-to-head