Game plan

Sara Sorribes Tormo v Donna Vekic

Every number combines what Sara Sorribes Tormo does well with what Donna Vekic 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 50%90%: 24%–76% · best of 5: 50%

Serve points won 50.8% / 50.7% Sara / Donna · tour 55.0%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 50%serve 50.8% / 50.7%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Donna Vekic'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	Donna
Direction choice	−0.48 ±0.10 better than 0%	−0.09 ±0.05 better than 38%
Shot selection	−0.84 ±0.19 better than 5%	+0.24 ±0.09 better than 72%
Execution	+2.10 ±0.36 better than 99%	−0.33 ±0.37 better than 43%
Points left on the table	3.12 ±0.13 lower than 7%	2.67 ±0.08 lower than 39%

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 Sorribes Tormo +2.87, Donna Vekic +0.86. 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 Sorribes Tormo serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Donna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	61%	69%	63.7%±5.4	46% ▲
Body	41%	51%	60%	54.6%±6.1	26% ▼
T	15%	59%	69%	60.6%±7.6	28% ▲

Optimal v Donna Vekic: +0.4±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Sara wins	v Donna	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	24%	58%	67%	59.7%±6.4	24%
Body	52%	53%	58%	55.4%±6.0	37% ▼
T	24%	54%	70%	60.6%±6.6	39% ▲

Optimal v Donna Vekic: +0.7±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Donna Vekic serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Donna wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	44%	70%	62%	66.5%±5.3	44%
Body	15%	65%	51%	58.6%±7.1	0% ▼
T	41%	73%	60%	66.0%±5.9	56% ▲

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +1.0±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +1.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Donna wins	v Sara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	48%	68%	60%	62.9%±5.6	51% ▲
Body	19%	59%	55%	57.4%±7.1	32% ▲
T	32%	67%	57%	58.9%±6.6	17% ▼

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +0.4±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.4 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 Donna	Value
FH through the middle	55%	+4.2	+3.8	−1.2	+6.8±2.1
FH down the line	19%	+1.5	+2.0	−3.7	−0.1±4.2
FH crosscourt	14%	+5.3	+3.1	+0.3	+8.7±4.2
FH slice through the middle	8%	−6.7	+0.1	+0.3	−6.3±2.5
FH slice crosscourt	4%	−6.6	+0.1	−1.4	−8.0±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.7±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (518 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Donna	Value
BH through the middle	49%	+6.0	+2.4	−0.5	+7.9±2.0
BH crosscourt	22%	+7.7	+4.0	−3.1	+8.7±3.1
BH down the line	12%	+2.2	+3.2	−1.3	+4.1±4.5
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	+1.9	−0.2	−4.5±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	−0.8	−1.3	−6.3±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (530 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Donna	Value
FH through the middle	50%	−3.2	+1.6	+0.3	−1.3±2.6
FH crosscourt	27%	+0.5	±0.0	+4.2	+4.7±4.0
FH down the line	23%	−0.6	+1.9	−2.1	−0.8±4.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.3±3.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Donna	Value
FH inside-out	34%	+1.4	+0.7	−2.1	±0.0±3.8
FH through the middle	31%	−2.7	+2.4	+0.3	±0.0±2.2
BH through the middle	18%	−2.6	+1.7	+0.2	−0.8±2.4
BH crosscourt	8%	+1.5	−0.1	−1.1	+0.3±3.2
BH down the line	3%	−0.5	−1.9	+0.2	−2.2±4.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +0.7±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (261 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Donna Vekic returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	54%	+4.2	+1.2	+1.5	+6.9±1.9
FH crosscourt	20%	+5.3	+0.1	+3.5	+8.9±3.7
FH down the line	18%	+1.5	+0.4	+2.4	+4.4±4.0
FH slice through the middle	5%	−6.7	−0.9	+0.9	−6.8±2.5
FH slice crosscourt	3%	−6.6	−3.7	±0.0	−10.3±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.4±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (740 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	53%	+6.0	+1.1	+1.6	+8.7±1.9
BH crosscourt	21%	+7.7	+1.7	+0.5	+9.9±2.9
BH down the line	19%	+2.2	+0.2	−0.6	+1.8±4.3
BH slice through the middle	4%	−6.2	−3.2	−0.1	−9.5±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	2%	−4.2	−3.7	+0.1	−7.8±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.5±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (867 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
FH through the middle	47%	−3.2	+0.3	+3.0	±0.0±2.8
FH crosscourt	27%	+0.5	−2.0	+0.2	−1.3±4.2
FH down the line	22%	−0.6	+0.7	+5.1	+5.2±5.1
FH slice through the middle	5%	−15.2	+0.4	±0.0	−14.8±1.4

Lean FH down the line: +5.1±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (207 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Sara	Value
BH through the middle	50%	−2.6	+0.2	+1.6	−0.8±2.4
BH down the line	20%	−0.5	−0.5	+1.6	+0.6±5.1
BH crosscourt	17%	+1.5	−0.5	+1.0	+2.0±3.6
FH through the middle	7%	−2.7	−0.6	+3.0	−0.3±2.5
FH inside-out	5%	+1.4	−1.8	+5.1	+4.7±4.0

Lean FH inside-out: +4.4±4.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (477 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 Sorribes Tormo

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return +1	+5.8±4.8	+4.0	+1.9
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.6±3.3	+4.0	+1.6
FH slice to the middle · rally	+5.4±3.8	+3.7	+1.7
FH to their forehand · return	+4.7±5.5	+3.6	+1.2
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+4.7±4.0	+2.6	+2.1
FH to the middle · serve +1	+4.4±2.9	+4.1	+0.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−2.4±3.2	−0.7	−1.7
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−0.4±4.7	−0.2	−0.3
FH to their backhand · return	−0.2±4.0	+3.8	−4.1
BH to their backhand · return +1	+0.1±4.7	+1.7	−1.6
BH slice to their forehand · rally	+0.5±4.7	+1.7	−1.2

Donna Vekic

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+3.4±3.9	+0.1	+3.2
BH to the middle · serve +1	+3.0±2.9	±0.0	+3.0
BH to the middle · return +1	+2.6±3.0	+1.5	+1.0
BH to their forehand · serve +1	+2.4±6.0	+4.3	−2.0
FH to their forehand · return +1	+2.1±4.4	−0.4	+2.5
BH to their backhand · return +1	+1.9±3.9	+0.2	+1.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	−6.7±4.4	−5.3	−1.4
FH to their forehand · rally	−4.4±3.0	−3.0	−1.4
FH lob to the middle · rally	−3.7±4.2	−1.9	−1.7
BH to their forehand · return +1	−3.1±6.1	−4.8	+1.7
BH to their backhand · rally	−2.2±2.8	−1.3	−0.9

Against Donna Vekic-like opponents

Sara Sorribes Tormo v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	50.6%	48.1%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Xin Yu Wang, Marta Kostyuk, Leylah Fernandez, Dayana Yastremska, Qinwen Zheng, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Katie Boulter, Aliaksandra Sasnovich, Harriet Dart, Sabine Lisicki. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.