Game plan

Sara Sorribes Tormo v Alison Van Uytvanck

Every number combines what Sara Sorribes Tormo does well with what Alison Van Uytvanck allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Sara Sorribes Tormo wins, best of 3 38%90%: 7%–81% · best of 5: 35%

Serve points won 54.6% / 56.9% Sara / Alison · tour 58.1%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 40%serve 55.2% / 57.1%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Sorribes Tormo's record against Alison Van Uytvanck's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −4.2 on serve, +1.8 on return vs expectation (556 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	Sara	Alison
Direction choice	−0.48 ±0.10 better than 0%	−0.17 ±0.13 better than 22%
Shot selection	−0.84 ±0.19 better than 5%	−0.40 ±0.14 better than 17%
Execution	+2.10 ±0.36 better than 99%	−0.18 ±0.59 better than 52%
Points left on the table	3.12 ±0.13 lower than 7%	3.17 ±0.19 lower than 5%

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.

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 Sorribes Tormo serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Alison	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	61%	70%	64.7%±7.8	59% ▲
Body	41%	51%	60%	53.9%±10.2	26% ▼
T	15%	59%	70%	61.6%±10.5	15%

Optimal v Alison Van Uytvanck: +1.0±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Alison	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	24%	58%	73%	65.8%±9.1	40% ▲
Body	52%	53%	58%	55.1%±11.7	37% ▼
T	24%	54%	70%	60.2%±9.3	23%

Optimal v Alison Van Uytvanck: +1.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +6.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Alison Van Uytvanck serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Alison wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	67%	62%	62.8%±7.9	44%
Body	20%	56%	51%	49.8%±10.2	5% ▼
T	36%	67%	60%	59.1%±9.3	51% ▲

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +1.1±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Alison wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	40%	71%	60%	66.1%±8.7	55% ▲
Body	7%	51%	55%	49.2%±13.6	0% ▼
T	53%	68%	57%	60.0%±8.7	45% ▼

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +0.8±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.4 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 Sorribes Tormo returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alison	Value
FH through the middle	55%	+4.2	+3.8	−2.2	+5.7±2.7
FH down the line	19%	+1.5	+2.0	−0.8	+2.8±4.6
FH crosscourt	14%	+5.3	+3.1	±0.0	+8.5±4.3
FH slice through the middle	8%	−6.7	+0.1	−0.4	−7.0±2.5
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	+0.1	−0.6	−7.2±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.6±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (518 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alison	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	+2.4	+1.1	+9.6±2.6
BH crosscourt	22%	+7.7	+4.0	+0.7	+12.4±3.5
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+3.2	+0.7	+6.1±4.4
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	+1.9	+1.6	−2.7±2.3
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	−0.8	−0.9	−5.8±2.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (530 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alison	Value
FH through the middle	50%	−3.2	+1.6	+1.0	−0.6±2.9
FH crosscourt	27%	+0.5	±0.0	+1.4	+1.9±3.9
FH down the line	23%	−0.6	+1.9	±0.0	+1.3±3.5

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.4±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Alison	Value
FH inside-out	34%	+1.4	+0.7	±0.0	+2.0±3.0
FH through the middle	31%	−2.7	+2.4	+1.0	+0.7±2.5
BH through the middle	18%	−2.6	+1.7	+2.7	+1.8±2.8
BH crosscourt	8%	+1.5	−0.1	+2.2	+3.6±3.5
BH down the line	3%	−0.5	−1.9	−0.4	−2.8±4.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.4±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (261 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Alison Van Uytvanck returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH slice through the middle	49%	−6.7	+0.4	+0.9	−5.4±2.4
FH through the middle	18%	+4.2	+0.1	+1.5	+5.8±2.5
FH slice down the line	10%	−10.5	+1.8	±0.0	−8.6±2.1
FH slice crosscourt	9%	−6.6	−1.8	±0.0	−8.4±1.7
FH down the line	7%	+1.5	−2.2	+2.4	+1.8±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: +8.4±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (184 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH crosscourt	40%	+7.7	+0.7	+0.5	+8.9±3.3
BH through the middle	39%	+6.0	+2.9	+1.6	+10.6±2.5
BH down the line	7%	+2.2	+1.3	−0.6	+2.9±4.0
BH slice crosscourt	6%	−4.2	+0.9	+0.1	−3.1±2.5
BH slice down the line	4%	−12.5	−1.0	−0.4	−13.9±2.2

Lean BH through the middle: +3.6±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (131 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	61%	−3.2	−1.3	+3.0	−1.5±2.8
FH crosscourt	22%	+0.5	+2.0	+0.2	+2.7±3.6
FH down the line	17%	−0.6	+0.1	+5.1	+4.6±4.3

Lean FH through the middle: −2.0±1.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (41 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.6	−2.2	+1.6	−3.2±2.7
BH crosscourt	49%	+1.5	−4.3	+1.0	−1.8±3.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +0.7±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (69 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 on grass. Each player's grass record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Sara Sorribes Tormo

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return	+7.5±4.8	+6.2	+1.3
BH to the middle · return	+7.2±3.6	+4.4	+2.8
FH to their backhand · rally	+6.5±5.0	+4.6	+1.8
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+5.6±5.8	+5.1	+0.5
BH to their backhand · rally	+5.1±4.6	+5.1	±0.0
FH to the middle · return	+4.7±4.0	+4.8	−0.1

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to the middle · rally	+0.1±3.3	+3.7	−3.6
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+0.8±4.5	+2.2	−1.5
BH to the middle · rally	+1.6±3.2	+2.5	−0.9
FH to their forehand · return +1	+1.9±4.7	+3.5	−1.6
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.0±4.7	+3.3	−1.4

Alison Van Uytvanck

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · rally	+5.4±3.7	+0.5	+4.9
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+5.3±4.7	+2.5	+2.8
BH to the middle · serve +1	+5.0±3.6	+1.7	+3.3
FH to the middle · rally	+3.7±3.4	+1.9	+1.8
BH to their backhand · return	+3.0±4.7	−0.3	+3.4
BH to the middle · return	+2.9±3.6	−1.4	+4.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · rally	−2.0±4.7	−2.0	±0.0
BH slice to the middle · rally	−1.1±2.8	+0.6	−1.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.7±4.8	−2.4	+1.7
FH to the middle · serve +1	+0.1±3.0	+0.2	−0.1
FH to the middle · return	+0.3±3.4	−2.2	+2.5

Against Alison Van Uytvanck-like opponents

Sara Sorribes Tormo v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	50.6%	48.1%
Players most similar to Alison Van Uytvanck	4	48.1%	45.3%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Karolina Muchova, Caty Mcnally, Elina Svitolina, Bianca Andreescu, Jessica Pegula, Maria Sakkari, Ajla Tomljanovic, Irina Camelia Begu, R, Kiki Bertens. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.