RallyIQ

Game plan

Tim Henman v Pete Sampras

Every number combines what Tim Henman does well with what Pete Sampras allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Tim Henman wins, best of 3 13%90%: 7%–22% · best of 5: 8%
Serve points won 62.8% / 72.1% Tim / Pete · tour 63.8%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 18%serve 63.1% / 70.6%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Tim Henman's record against Pete Sampras's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −1.0 on serve, −7.2 on return vs expectation (390 points); head-to-head: −0.7 on serve, −2.8 on return vs expectation (921 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

CareerTimPete
Direction choice+0.09 ±0.11
better than 80%
+0.37 ±0.04
better than 99%
Shot selection+0.03 ±0.21
better than 56%
+0.63 ±0.06
better than 96%
Execution−1.47 ±0.39
better than 10%
−0.32 ±0.18
better than 52%
Points left on the table3.76 ±0.27
lower than 5%
3.11 ±0.10
lower than 15%

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.

Tim Henman serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowTim winsv PeteMatchupOptimal
Wide45%76%76%79.2%±3.058% ▲
Body11%64%65%65.2%±6.20% ▼
T44%77%73%75.6%±3.542% ▼

Optimal v Pete Sampras: +0.5±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowTim winsv PeteMatchupOptimal
Wide47%73%72%71.8%±3.660% ▲
Body15%62%65%64.2%±6.02% ▼
T38%73%74%75.5%±3.738%

Optimal v Pete Sampras: +0.6±0.6 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.

Pete Sampras serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowPete winsv TimMatchupOptimal
Wide42%80%76%82.5%±2.739% ▼
Body6%67%65%68.8%±6.80% ▼
T52%85%79%87.9%±2.161% ▲

Optimal v Tim Henman: +0.4±0.3 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +3.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowPete winsv TimMatchupOptimal
Wide42%80%76%82.4%±2.655% ▲
Body6%71%70%77.5%±6.10% ▼
T52%79%75%81.8%±3.045% ▼

Optimal v Tim Henman: +0.2±0.4 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +0.6 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.

Tim Henman returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PeteValue
FH through the middle36%+4.3−0.5−3.1+0.7±1.8
FH down the line31%+1.7+3.3−0.2+4.7±2.9
FH crosscourt17%+5.5−3.5−2.1−0.1±3.2
FH slice through the middle9%−4.2+1.5−1.8−4.6±2.3
FH slice down the line5%−4.3+0.8+2.9−0.5±3.1

Lean FH down the line: +3.5±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (666 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PeteValue
BH slice through the middle32%−4.2+0.3−3.3−7.2±1.5
BH slice crosscourt27%+0.5+1.2−3.7−1.9±2.1
BH through the middle16%+6.4−2.1−5.0−0.7±2.0
BH slice down the line10%−8.4−0.9−0.6−9.9±3.0
BH crosscourt9%+8.8−5.3−1.1+2.4±2.7

Lean BH crosscourt: +6.3±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (792 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PeteValue
FH down the line36%−1.8−0.1−0.9−2.8±3.6
FH through the middle30%−3.5−2.4−1.4−7.2±2.2
FH crosscourt28%−0.2+2.5−0.7+1.6±3.5
FH slice through the middle4%−12.7+1.5+2.0−9.2±2.0
FH slice down the line2%−9.4−0.9+1.3−9.0±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +4.9±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (238 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv PeteValue
BH slice crosscourt27%−4.0+0.4+1.0−2.7±1.9
BH through the middle19%−2.9+0.7−2.1−4.3±1.8
BH slice through the middle16%−11.3+0.7−0.2−10.8±2.0
BH crosscourt14%+1.0−2.7+1.1−0.5±2.4
BH slice down the line10%−9.3+2.1+2.3−5.0±4.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.0±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (582 returns charted)

Pete Sampras returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv TimValue
FH through the middle41%+4.3−2.4−5.1−3.2±1.7
FH crosscourt34%+5.5−1.8−1.7+2.0±2.9
FH down the line15%+1.7+1.8+2.7+6.2±3.0
FH slice through the middle4%−4.2+2.1−0.1−2.2±2.1
FH slice crosscourt2%−4.3+4.9±0.0+0.5±2.0
BH slice inside-in0%+3.4+2.8+0.2+6.4±2.8

Lean BH slice inside-in: +6.1±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (3531 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv TimValue
BH slice through the middle29%−4.2+2.3−2.5−4.4±1.8
BH slice crosscourt25%+0.5+4.0+0.2+4.7±2.2
BH through the middle18%+6.4−1.8−4.7−0.1±1.6
BH crosscourt13%+8.8+0.5−0.2+9.1±2.3
BH slice down the line8%−8.4+4.6+2.1−1.7±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +8.2±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (5404 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv TimValue
FH crosscourt37%−0.2+2.3+2.5+4.5±3.6
FH through the middle30%−3.5−1.8+0.2−5.0±2.3
FH down the line17%−1.8+0.3−1.2−2.7±4.2
BH through the middle4%+0.1+0.3−0.8−0.4±1.8
BH slice through the middle3%−6.9−1.9+0.6−8.2±2.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.4±2.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (1157 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv TimValue
BH through the middle26%−2.9−0.3−0.8−4.0±1.4
BH crosscourt24%+1.0−0.1+2.0+2.9±1.8
BH slice crosscourt20%−4.0+1.5+1.1−1.4±1.9
BH down the line10%−0.2−0.5+2.1+1.3±3.9
BH slice through the middle8%−11.3+2.6+0.6−8.1±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.3±1.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (4084 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 hard. Each player's hard record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.

Tim Henman

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their backhand · serve +1+5.4±3.0+2.3+3.1
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1+4.1±6.2+2.2+1.9
FH volley to their forehand · rally+3.5±7.0+4.6−1.1
FH to their forehand · return +1+3.1±4.1+1.6+1.5
FH to their forehand · serve +1+3.0±3.3+2.7+0.3
BH volley to the middle · serve +1+1.8±4.8+2.0−0.3

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to the middle · return +1−9.9±3.3−4.2−5.7
FH volley to their backhand · rally−9.2±7.2−5.6−3.7
BH to their forehand · return−8.4±4.7−2.4−6.0
FH to the middle · rally−6.4±2.4−4.7−1.8
BH to the middle · return−6.4±2.3−2.3−4.1

Pete Sampras

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH volley to their backhand · rally+13.4±6.8+8.9+4.6
BH slice to their forehand · return+6.4±4.0+3.9+2.5
FH volley to their forehand · rally+4.9±6.6+4.8+0.1
BH slice to their backhand · return+3.4±2.4+2.9+0.5
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.9±5.6+1.4+1.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.8±3.0+3.8−1.0

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return +1−7.9±2.6−2.2−5.6
FH to their forehand · return +1−5.4±3.7−1.2−4.2
FH to the middle · return−5.1±2.2−1.3−3.7
BH to their forehand · rally−4.8±4.6−3.0−1.8
FH to the middle · rally−4.7±2.3−3.5−1.2

Against Pete Sampras-like opponents

Tim Henman vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–63.6%32.6%
Players most similar to Pete Sampras2 62.3%28.1%
Pete Sampras (charted head-to-head)4 61.9%28.7%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Gilles Muller, Mario Ancic, Mark Philippoussis, Todd Martin, Boris Becker, Michael Stich, Malivai Washington, Guy Forget, Brad Gilbert. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.

Charted head-to-head