RallyIQ

Game plan

Stefan Edberg v Mark Philippoussis

Every number combines what Stefan Edberg does well with what Mark Philippoussis allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Stefan Edberg wins, best of 3 55%90%: 35%–74% · best of 5: 57%
Serve points won 70.7% / 69.5% Stefan / Mark · tour 65.7%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 62%serve 70.8% / 68.3%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Stefan Edberg's record against Mark Philippoussis's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −0.8 on serve, −1.7 on return vs expectation (9224 points); head-to-head: +7.1 on serve, +0.6 on return vs expectation (243 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

CareerStefanMark
Direction choice+0.16 ±0.05
better than 89%
+0.07 ±0.14
better than 74%
Shot selection+0.79 ±0.06
better than 98%
+0.32 ±0.21
better than 82%
Execution−0.62 ±0.21
better than 40%
−1.40 ±0.61
better than 12%
Points left on the table3.93 ±0.11
lower than 5%
3.53 ±0.34
lower than 8%

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.

Stefan Edberg serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowStefan winsv MarkMatchupOptimal
Wide42%75%79%80.6%±3.842%
Body20%69%65%70.3%±7.17% ▼
T38%72%83%80.7%±3.851% ▲

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +0.3±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowStefan winsv MarkMatchupOptimal
Wide55%72%78%77.3%±3.868% ▲
Body15%65%64%65.4%±9.22% ▼
T30%70%77%75.8%±4.630%

Optimal v Mark Philippoussis: +0.7±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Mark Philippoussis serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMark winsv StefanMatchupOptimal
Wide46%81%69%77.8%±4.046%
Body7%66%62%64.3%±8.60% ▼
T47%80%74%78.9%±4.054% ▲

Optimal v Stefan Edberg: +0.4±0.4 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMark winsv StefanMatchupOptimal
Wide50%79%69%75.4%±4.263% ▲
Body4%63%63%62.6%±10.40% ▼
T46%79%70%77.9%±4.137% ▼

Optimal v Stefan Edberg: +0.2±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.9 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.

Stefan Edberg returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
FH through the middle45%+4.3+0.4−0.8+3.8±1.9
FH down the line31%+1.7+5.4−2.0+5.1±3.3
FH crosscourt20%+5.5+2.6−1.9+6.2±3.4
BH slice through the middle1%−1.6+0.8−0.5−1.4±2.2
FH slice through the middle1%−4.2−0.5+0.1−4.7±2.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +1.7±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (3660 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
BH slice through the middle32%−4.2+1.2−0.5−3.5±1.8
BH slice crosscourt25%+0.5+5.2−1.0+4.8±2.3
BH through the middle14%+6.4−1.4−3.7+1.4±2.1
BH slice down the line11%−8.4+5.0−1.2−4.6±2.6
BH crosscourt9%+8.8+1.1−1.7+8.1±2.9
FH through the middle0%+7.7+1.2−0.8+8.1±2.2

Lean FH through the middle: +7.5±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (4178 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
FH down the line34%−1.8+5.6−4.1−0.3±3.9
FH through the middle32%−3.5−0.4−1.4−5.3±2.4
FH crosscourt28%−0.2+2.2+1.0+3.0±3.8
BH slice through the middle2%−6.9+1.3+0.2−5.5±2.2
BH slice inside-in2%−2.1+0.2+1.5−0.4±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.1±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (1191 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MarkValue
BH slice crosscourt29%−4.0+2.5+1.5−0.1±2.0
BH through the middle17%−2.9−0.4−1.5−4.8±1.9
BH crosscourt13%+1.0−0.8−0.8−0.6±2.6
BH slice through the middle12%−11.3+2.8+0.2−8.3±2.1
BH slice down the line12%−9.3+4.3−1.3−6.3±3.4
FH inside-in2%+0.6+2.6+1.0+4.2±4.4

Lean FH inside-in: +6.6±4.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (2884 returns charted)

Mark Philippoussis returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv StefanValue
FH through the middle51%+4.3−2.7−2.2−0.7±1.9
FH down the line30%+1.7−4.1+3.0+0.6±3.3
FH crosscourt17%+5.5−5.3+0.5+0.7±3.5
FH slice through the middle3%−4.2+0.8−0.2−3.6±2.1

Lean FH crosscourt: +0.9±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (386 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv StefanValue
BH slice through the middle32%−4.2±0.0−1.4−5.7±1.8
BH through the middle21%+6.4−3.4−4.0−0.9±2.0
BH slice crosscourt21%+0.5+1.5+0.9+3.0±2.4
BH crosscourt10%+8.8−3.2+1.4+7.0±2.7
BH down the line9%+4.2−4.8−1.5−2.1±3.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +8.0±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (480 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv StefanValue
FH through the middle39%−3.5−1.3−2.4−7.2±2.3
FH down the line30%−1.8−2.1+4.0+0.2±3.8
FH crosscourt25%−0.2±0.0+4.0+3.8±3.6
BH through the middle6%+0.1−0.9−3.0−3.8±1.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.8±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (129 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv StefanValue
BH slice crosscourt28%−4.0+3.0+1.4+0.4±2.2
BH through the middle22%−2.9+0.6−3.0−5.3±1.9
BH crosscourt17%+1.0+0.2+3.7+5.0±2.5
BH slice through the middle15%−11.3+0.7+1.3−9.3±2.2
BH slice down the line7%−9.3+0.9−1.4−9.8±4.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +7.4±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (405 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 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.

Stefan Edberg

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return +1+9.8±5.5+5.1+4.6
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1+7.1±5.4+4.4+2.7
BH to their forehand · serve +1+7.0±5.6+1.8+5.2
FH to their backhand · return+4.9±4.7+7.3−2.4
FH to their backhand · rally+4.2±4.8+3.3+0.9
BH slice to their backhand · rally+3.8±3.3+3.3+0.5

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · rally−7.7±3.2−4.7−3.0
BH to the middle · return +1−7.6±2.9−6.1−1.5
BH to the middle · return−4.6±2.7−0.4−4.2
FH to the middle · serve +1−4.2±3.4−0.4−3.8
BH slice to the middle · return−3.2±2.6−1.6−1.6

Mark Philippoussis

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their forehand · return+9.2±4.8+1.9+7.3
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1+5.2±6.6+4.9+0.3
BH to their backhand · serve +1+4.7±3.7+2.4+2.3
BH to their backhand · rally+4.4±3.9−0.9+5.3
BH slice to their backhand · rally+2.6±3.3+2.0+0.5
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.4±5.7+0.6+0.8

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · return +1−9.1±6.4−7.1−2.0
FH volley to their backhand · serve +1−8.1±5.9−6.3−1.9
BH to the middle · return +1−7.8±3.6−0.2−7.6
BH to the middle · rally−7.7±3.1−4.9−2.9
FH to their backhand · return−6.5±4.7−8.8+2.3

Against Mark Philippoussis-like opponents

Stefan Edberg vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–64.9%37.6%
Players most similar to Mark Philippoussis53 63.0%34.2%
Mark Philippoussis (charted head-to-head)1 74.2%34.7%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Roger Federer, Gilles Muller, Mario Ancic, Tim Henman, Pete Sampras, Todd Martin, Boris Becker, Malivai Washington, Brad Gilbert. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.

Charted head-to-head