Game plan
Sumit Nagal v Miomir Kecmanovic
Every number combines what Sumit Nagal does well with what Miomir Kecmanovic allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective
Forecast
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Sumit Nagal's record against Miomir Kecmanovic'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.
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.
Sumit Nagal serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Sumit wins | v Miomir | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 50% | 68% | 76% | 71.7%±8.4 | 63% ▲ |
| Body | 12% | 59% | 58% | 53.6%±14.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 38% | 69% | 80% | 74.3%±9.2 | 37% |
Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +1.0±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Sumit wins | v Miomir | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 67% | 63% | 73% | 63.9%±8.3 | 61% ▼ |
| Body | 6% | 59% | 58% | 53.5%±14.9 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 26% | 67% | 73% | 67.8%±11.2 | 39% ▲ |
Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +0.3±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Miomir Kecmanovic serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Miomir wins | v Sumit | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 41% | 68% | 73% | 68.2%±10.0 | 42% |
| Body | 16% | 61% | 62% | 59.1%±13.0 | 2% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 73% | 66% | 63.9%±11.0 | 56% ▲ |
Optimal v Sumit Nagal: +0.9±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Miomir wins | v Sumit | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 45% | 71% | 66% | 64.9%±10.1 | 58% ▲ |
| Body | 14% | 65% | 63% | 64.9%±13.0 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 41% | 68% | 74% | 70.2%±10.4 | 41% |
Optimal v Sumit Nagal: +0.7±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.1 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.
Sumit Nagal returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Miomir | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 53% | +4.3 | +1.6 | +1.1 | +6.9±2.5 |
| FH down the line | 24% | +1.7 | +0.1 | +1.8 | +3.6±3.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 22% | +5.5 | +2.1 | +4.0 | +11.6±3.7 |
Lean FH through the middle: −0.2±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (58 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Miomir | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 52% | +6.4 | +0.9 | +2.4 | +9.7±2.3 |
| BH crosscourt | 48% | +8.8 | ±0.0 | +1.4 | +10.2±3.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +0.2±2.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (52 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Miomir Kecmanovic returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sumit | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 51% | +4.3 | +2.7 | ±0.0 | +7.0±2.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | +5.5 | +0.3 | +3.1 | +8.9±3.7 |
| FH down the line | 13% | +1.7 | +4.3 | −0.9 | +5.1±4.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 10% | −4.2 | −0.1 | ±0.0 | −4.3±1.6 |
| FH slice down the line | 3% | −4.3 | −0.3 | ±0.0 | −4.6±2.1 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +3.4±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (845 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sumit | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 37% | +8.8 | +3.2 | +0.6 | +12.6±3.2 |
| BH through the middle | 35% | +6.4 | +1.6 | +2.5 | +10.4±2.5 |
| BH slice through the middle | 13% | −4.2 | −0.2 | ±0.0 | −4.4±1.7 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 9% | +0.5 | +0.5 | ±0.0 | +1.0±2.1 |
| BH down the line | 5% | +4.2 | +0.7 | +0.4 | +5.3±4.1 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (721 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sumit | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 56% | −3.5 | +0.6 | −0.6 | −3.5±2.7 |
| FH crosscourt | 28% | −0.2 | +2.8 | +4.1 | +6.7±3.7 |
| FH down the line | 16% | −1.8 | +1.1 | +2.1 | +1.4±4.4 |
Lean FH crosscourt: +6.5±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Sumit | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 46% | +1.0 | +2.0 | −0.1 | +2.9±2.7 |
| BH through the middle | 42% | −2.9 | +1.8 | +0.5 | −0.6±2.3 |
| BH down the line | 6% | −0.2 | +0.5 | −0.9 | −0.7±4.2 |
| FH through the middle | 3% | −2.9 | +0.9 | −0.6 | −2.6±2.1 |
| FH inside-in | 2% | +0.6 | +2.6 | +4.1 | +7.3±3.0 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +1.9±1.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (550 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.
Sumit Nagal
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | +4.7±2.6 | +0.6 | +4.1 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +4.0±2.7 | +3.6 | +0.4 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +3.1±3.2 | −0.6 | +3.7 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +2.2±2.1 | +1.7 | +0.5 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +2.0±1.9 | +1.2 | +0.8 |
| FH to the middle · return | +1.8±2.3 | +1.1 | +0.6 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +0.3±3.6 | −2.9 | +3.3 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +0.9±2.3 | +0.1 | +0.8 |
| FH to the middle · return | +1.8±2.3 | +1.1 | +0.6 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +2.0±1.9 | +1.2 | +0.8 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +2.2±2.1 | +1.7 | +0.5 |
Miomir Kecmanovic
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | +5.5±2.8 | +2.8 | +2.7 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +4.1±2.8 | +2.6 | +1.5 |
| BH to the middle · return | +3.6±2.2 | +1.1 | +2.5 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +3.4±2.3 | +0.8 | +2.6 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +2.3±2.7 | +1.6 | +0.7 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.2±1.9 | +1.3 | −0.1 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.9±2.1 | +1.5 | −0.7 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.2±1.9 | +1.3 | −0.1 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +2.3±2.7 | +1.6 | +0.7 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +3.4±2.3 | +0.8 | +2.6 |
| BH to the middle · return | +3.6±2.2 | +1.1 | +2.5 |
Against Miomir Kecmanovic-like opponents
| Sumit Nagal v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 54.5% | 39.9% |
Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alex De Minaur, Gael Monfils, Botic Van De Zandschulp, Novak Djokovic, Marcos Giron, Taylor Fritz, Nuno Borges, Arthur Cazaux, Emil Ruusuvuori, Ilya Ivashka. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.