RallyIQ

Game plan

Sara Sorribes Tormo v Maria Sakkari

Every number combines what Sara Sorribes Tormo does well with what Maria Sakkari 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 18%90%: 3%–53% · best of 5: 13%
Serve points won 50.3% / 57.1% Sara / Maria · tour 58.1%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 18%serve 50.3% / 57.0%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Maria Sakkari's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +0.2 on serve, −1.4 on return vs expectation (286 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

CareerSaraMaria
Direction choice−0.48 ±0.10
better than 0%
+0.01 ±0.06
better than 54%
Shot selection−0.84 ±0.19
better than 5%
+0.36 ±0.08
better than 85%
Execution+2.10 ±0.36
better than 99%
−0.34 ±0.33
better than 42%
Points left on the table3.12 ±0.13
lower than 7%
2.52 ±0.08
lower than 63%

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 +2.14, Maria Sakkari +0.14. 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 serveNowSara winsv MariaMatchupOptimal
Wide44%61%63%57.5%±5.244%
Body41%51%57%51.0%±5.926% ▼
T15%59%69%60.2%±7.630% ▲

Optimal v Maria Sakkari: +0.8±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.0 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowSara winsv MariaMatchupOptimal
Wide24%58%66%58.7%±6.340% ▲
Body52%53%57%53.8%±6.337% ▼
T24%54%67%57.3%±6.523%

Optimal v Maria Sakkari: +0.8±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Maria Sakkari serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMaria winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide41%64%62%59.8%±5.440% ▼
Body16%59%51%52.9%±6.53% ▼
T42%73%60%65.8%±5.757% ▲

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +0.5±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMaria winsv SaraMatchupOptimal
Wide37%62%60%56.2%±5.652% ▲
Body15%61%55%59.4%±7.02% ▼
T48%69%57%61.3%±5.946% ▼

Optimal v Sara Sorribes Tormo: +0.1±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.2 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

ReturnNowTourOwnv MariaValue
FH through the middle55%+4.2+3.8−1.1+6.9±2.0
FH down the line19%+1.5+2.0−1.8+1.8±4.1
FH crosscourt14%+5.3+3.1−3.5+5.0±3.8
FH slice through the middle8%−6.7+0.1−0.6−7.2±2.5
FH slice crosscourt4%−6.6+0.1−0.9−7.5±2.7

Lean FH through the middle: +3.0±1.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (518 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MariaValue
BH through the middle49%+6.0+2.4−1.4+7.1±1.9
BH crosscourt22%+7.7+4.0+2.1+13.8±2.9
BH down the line12%+2.2+3.2−0.2+5.2±4.2
BH slice through the middle8%−6.2+1.9−0.4−4.8±2.6
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.2−0.8−0.5−5.4±2.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.3±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (530 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MariaValue
FH through the middle50%−3.2+1.6−0.1−1.7±2.7
FH crosscourt27%+0.5±0.0−1.0−0.5±4.1
FH down the line23%−0.6+1.9+1.4+2.6±5.1

Lean FH down the line: +3.0±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MariaValue
FH inside-out34%+1.4+0.7+1.4+3.4±4.2
FH through the middle31%−2.7+2.4−0.1−0.4±2.3
BH through the middle18%−2.6+1.7+0.1−0.8±2.3
BH crosscourt8%+1.5−0.1+0.6+2.1±2.9
BH down the line3%−0.5−1.9+0.4−2.0±4.0

Lean FH inside-out: +2.7±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (261 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Maria Sakkari returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH through the middle44%+4.2−0.2+1.5+5.5±1.8
FH crosscourt20%+5.3−3.5+3.5+5.3±3.6
FH down the line14%+1.5+1.9+2.4+5.9±3.9
FH slice through the middle12%−6.7−1.9+0.9−7.8±2.4
FH slice crosscourt7%−6.6−2.2±0.0−8.8±2.0

Lean FH down the line: +3.2±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (1015 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH through the middle48%+6.0+0.1+1.6+7.8±1.9
BH crosscourt36%+7.7−1.4+0.5+6.8±2.6
BH down the line10%+2.2−4.6−0.6−3.0±4.5
BH slice through the middle4%−6.2−3.6−0.1−10.0±2.4
BH slice crosscourt3%−4.2−3.6+0.1−7.6±2.8

Lean BH through the middle: +2.6±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (954 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
FH through the middle58%−3.2−3.7+3.0−3.9±2.7
FH crosscourt32%+0.5−1.9+0.2−1.2±4.2
FH down the line10%−0.6−1.1+5.1+3.4±5.0

Lean FH down the line: +5.7±4.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (250 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv SaraValue
BH crosscourt40%+1.5−0.7+1.0+1.8±3.3
BH through the middle38%−2.6−1.1+1.6−2.1±2.5
BH down the line14%−0.5+0.5+1.6+1.5±5.2
FH through the middle5%−2.7−1.9+3.0−1.6±2.4
FH inside-in2%+0.7±0.0+0.2+0.9±3.8

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (509 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

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return+9.4±4.5+6.2+3.2
FH to their forehand · serve +1+5.8±5.2+5.1+0.6
FH to the middle · serve +1+5.5±3.4+5.4+0.1
BH to their backhand · serve +1+5.0±4.1+2.2+2.8
FH to the middle · return+4.6±3.6+4.8−0.2
BH to their backhand · rally+4.5±4.3+5.1−0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.9±4.9+3.5−5.4
FH to their forehand · return−1.0±5.4+3.2−4.2
FH to their backhand · return−1.0±5.5+3.3−4.2
FH slice to their backhand · rally−0.2±3.8−0.5+0.3
BH to their backhand · return +1+0.1±3.9+0.9−0.9

Maria Sakkari

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return+9.2±5.5+2.5+6.7
BH to their forehand · rally+5.6±4.9+0.4+5.2
FH to their forehand · return +1+5.4±4.9+1.3+4.1
BH to their backhand · return+4.5±4.5+1.2+3.4
BH to their backhand · rally+4.5±4.0−0.4+4.9
FH to their forehand · serve +1+4.3±5.0+1.5+2.8

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally−6.4±3.7−1.5−4.9
BH slice to the middle · rally−5.6±3.1−3.9−1.7
FH to their backhand · return +1−3.1±5.3−5.2+2.1
FH slice to the middle · rally−2.9±3.1−1.8−1.1
FH slice to their backhand · rally−2.7±3.8−1.6−1.1

Against Maria Sakkari-like opponents

Sara Sorribes Tormo vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–50.6%48.1%
Players most similar to Maria Sakkari2 52.1%46.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Xin Yu Wang, Elina Svitolina, Jasmine Paolini, Maya Joint, Nadia Podoroska, Anna Bondar, Yue Yuan, Heather Watson, Eugenie Bouchard, Andrea Petkovic. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.