Game plan

Tamara Zidansek v Jasmine Paolini

Every number combines what Tamara Zidansek does well with what Jasmine Paolini allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Tamara Zidansek wins, best of 3 36%90%: 14%–65% · best of 5: 33%

Serve points won 54.3% / 57.0% Tamara / Jasmine · tour 56.3%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 34%serve 53.8% / 56.9%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Tamara Zidansek's record against Jasmine Paolini's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +3.9 on serve, −0.3 on return vs expectation (446 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	Tamara	Jasmine
Direction choice	−0.10 ±0.09 better than 36%	−0.08 ±0.06 better than 39%
Shot selection	+0.29 ±0.17 better than 78%	+0.57 ±0.09 better than 96%
Execution	−0.43 ±0.41 better than 36%	+0.55 ±0.36 better than 81%
Points left on the table	2.62 ±0.11 lower than 49%	2.60 ±0.10 lower than 53%

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: Tamara Zidansek +0.03, Jasmine Paolini +0.54. 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.

Tamara Zidansek serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Jasmine	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	64%	65%	63.4%±6.2	43% ▲
Body	34%	55%	55%	53.2%±7.0	19% ▼
T	26%	68%	67%	66.6%±7.2	38% ▲

Optimal v Jasmine Paolini: +0.9±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +5.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tamara wins	v Jasmine	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	63%	60%	58.0%±6.7	57% ▲
Body	27%	52%	54%	49.6%±8.5	12% ▼
T	32%	64%	57%	56.5%±7.4	31%

Optimal v Jasmine Paolini: +0.4±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +2.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Jasmine Paolini serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Jasmine wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	33%	64%	68%	66.5%±6.9	48% ▲
Body	28%	57%	52%	51.6%±7.8	12% ▼
T	39%	62%	64%	57.8%±6.9	40%

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: +0.8±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +7.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Jasmine wins	v Tamara	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	63%	63%	60.9%±6.3	26% ▼
Body	21%	57%	62%	62.6%±8.3	21%
T	38%	68%	62%	65.9%±7.2	53% ▲

Optimal v Tamara Zidansek: +0.3±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.7 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.

Tamara Zidansek returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jasmine	Value
FH through the middle	49%	+4.2	−0.6	−0.3	+3.3±2.4
FH down the line	21%	+1.5	−0.1	−2.2	−0.7±4.3
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.3	+0.5	+0.2	+6.1±3.8
FH slice through the middle	7%	−6.7	−1.9	±0.0	−8.6±2.4
FH slice crosscourt	5%	−6.6	+0.1	−1.0	−7.5±2.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.8±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (244 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jasmine	Value
BH through the middle	52%	+6.0	+0.4	+0.9	+7.4±2.1
BH crosscourt	18%	+7.7	−0.5	+1.0	+8.3±3.1
BH down the line	16%	+2.2	−0.9	+3.5	+4.8±4.3
BH slice through the middle	8%	−6.2	−0.4	+0.6	−6.1±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	4%	−4.2	−0.4	−1.3	−5.9±2.6

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.1±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (334 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jasmine	Value
FH through the middle	43%	−3.2	+2.4	+0.3	−0.5±2.9
FH crosscourt	29%	+0.5	+0.9	+1.5	+3.0±4.2
FH down the line	19%	−0.6	+1.0	+3.4	+3.8±4.8
FH slice through the middle	10%	−15.2	+0.3	−0.3	−15.2±1.8

Lean FH down the line: +4.0±4.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (91 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Jasmine	Value
BH through the middle	38%	−2.6	±0.0	+0.5	−2.0±2.5
BH crosscourt	23%	+1.5	−1.0	+0.2	+0.7±3.1
FH inside-out	12%	+1.4	+1.3	+3.4	+6.1±3.9
FH through the middle	11%	−2.7	+0.8	+0.3	−1.6±2.2
BH down the line	8%	−0.5	−0.1	+2.0	+1.3±4.4

Lean FH inside-out: +5.9±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (130 returns charted)

Jasmine Paolini returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH through the middle	47%	+4.2	+1.1	+1.1	+6.3±2.3
FH crosscourt	26%	+5.3	+2.9	−2.9	+5.4±3.7
FH down the line	18%	+1.5	+0.1	+0.6	+2.2±4.3
FH slice through the middle	5%	−6.7	−2.3	+1.2	−7.9±2.2
FH slice down the line	2%	−10.5	−0.3	+0.4	−10.4±2.5

Lean FH through the middle: +2.3±1.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (824 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	50%	+6.0	+2.4	+2.0	+10.5±2.0
BH crosscourt	25%	+7.7	+2.7	+1.8	+12.2±3.0
BH down the line	13%	+2.2	+0.5	−3.0	−0.3±4.6
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−3.3	+1.4	−8.1±2.5
BH slice down the line	3%	−12.5	−1.9	±0.0	−14.4±2.4

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.1±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (769 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
FH through the middle	44%	−3.2	−0.7	+2.5	−1.3±3.0
FH crosscourt	34%	+0.5	−0.1	−3.6	−3.2±4.5
FH down the line	22%	−0.6	+1.6	−1.1	−0.1±5.3

Lean FH down the line: +1.6±4.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (187 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tamara	Value
BH through the middle	45%	−2.6	−0.2	+1.4	−1.4±2.5
BH crosscourt	34%	+1.5	+0.8	+1.0	+3.2±3.4
BH down the line	12%	−0.5	−2.0	+4.3	+1.8±5.3
FH through the middle	5%	−2.7	+0.2	+2.5	+0.1±2.6
FH inside-out	3%	+1.4	+2.6	−1.1	+2.8±4.0

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.5±2.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (425 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.

Tamara Zidansek

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.9±2.8	+2.5	+2.3
BH to the middle · return	+2.7±1.7	+1.2	+1.5
BH to the middle · serve +1	+2.3±2.1	+2.5	−0.2
BH to their backhand · serve +1	+2.1±3.2	+1.0	+1.1
FH to their forehand · rally	+2.0±2.1	+1.2	+0.7
BH to their forehand · return	+1.9±3.9	−1.5	+3.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to the middle · rally	−3.7±2.2	−2.1	−1.6
FH to the middle · return +1	−3.5±2.4	−3.4	−0.1
FH to their backhand · rally	−3.4±2.3	−2.2	−1.3
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−1.4±2.8	−1.8	+0.4
FH to their backhand · return +1	−1.3±3.5	−0.5	−0.9

Jasmine Paolini

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · return	+5.3±2.5	+3.1	+2.3
BH to the middle · return	+4.9±1.6	+2.1	+2.8
BH to their forehand · rally	+3.4±3.6	+2.2	+1.3
FH to the middle · return	+3.2±1.9	+1.1	+2.0
BH to the middle · return +1	+2.6±2.1	+1.1	+1.6
FH to the middle · return +1	+2.0±2.3	+0.6	+1.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally	−3.4±2.9	−1.9	−1.5
BH to their backhand · return +1	−3.4±2.9	−1.2	−2.1
FH to the middle · rally	−2.8±1.7	−1.4	−1.4
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−2.7±4.6	+2.6	−5.3
BH to their backhand · rally	−2.0±2.1	−1.0	−1.0

Against Jasmine Paolini-like opponents

Tamara Zidansek v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	56.4%	43.9%
Players most similar to Jasmine Paolini	2	60.8%	43.0%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Alexandra Eala, Diana Shnaider, Bianca Andreescu, Maya Joint, Nadia Podoroska, Jaqueline Cristian, Maria Sakkari, Nao Hibino, Andrea Petkovic, Dominika Cibulkova. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.