Game plan

Tim Van Rijthoven v Christopher Eubanks

Every number combines what Tim Van Rijthoven does well with what Christopher Eubanks allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Tim Van Rijthoven wins, best of 3 84%90%: 65%–95% · best of 5: 90%

Serve points won 76.6% / 67.7% Tim / Christopher · tour 65.7%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 83%serve 75.7% / 67.4%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Van Rijthoven's record against Christopher Eubanks's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +9.9 on serve, −3.7 on return vs expectation (295 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	Tim	Christopher
Direction choice	−0.02 ±0.06 better than 52%	−0.07 ±0.14 better than 40%
Shot selection	−0.41 ±0.13 better than 16%	−0.33 ±0.35 better than 20%
Execution	−1.17 ±0.75 better than 20%	−2.55 ±0.87 better than 0%
Points left on the table	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 47%	3.10 ±0.25 lower than 16%

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 Van Rijthoven serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Christopher	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	78%	79%	83.4%±5.1	36% ▼
Body	6%	63%	61%	60.1%±13.9	0% ▼
T	51%	82%	85%	89.7%±3.6	64% ▲

Optimal v Christopher Eubanks: +1.3±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +4.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Christopher	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	81%	81%	87.8%±4.2	67% ▲
Body	6%	66%	52%	55.6%±16.2	0% ▼
T	40%	74%	80%	82.0%±5.7	33% ▼

Optimal v Christopher Eubanks: +0.8±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +4.1 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Christopher Eubanks serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Christopher wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	47%	68%	78%	73.6%±6.7	60% ▲
Body	7%	70%	67%	73.5%±10.5	0% ▼
T	46%	66%	79%	70.4%±6.9	40% ▼

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.3±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Christopher wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	61%	75%	73%	75.0%±6.1	51% ▼
Body	2%	61%	59%	57.3%±15.3	0% ▼
T	36%	74%	78%	78.9%±6.3	49% ▲

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.6±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +2.9 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.

Tim Van Rijthoven returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−3.6	+1.4	+2.1±2.8
FH slice through the middle	20%	−4.2	−1.7	+1.1	−4.7±2.3
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−0.8	+1.0	+5.7±4.4
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	−3.4	−2.6	−4.3±4.5
FH slice down the line	9%	−4.3	−1.7	−0.1	−6.1±3.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +6.1±3.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (247 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
BH slice through the middle	44%	−4.2	−1.4	−0.7	−6.3±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	17%	+0.5	+0.2	−1.4	−0.7±3.0
BH through the middle	13%	+6.4	+1.6	+2.5	+10.5±2.7
BH down the line	11%	+4.2	−1.9	−0.8	+1.5±4.5
BH slice down the line	8%	−8.4	−0.8	−0.8	−10.0±3.3

Lean BH through the middle: +12.1±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (327 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
FH through the middle	64%	−3.5	−1.6	−1.7	−6.8±2.8
FH crosscourt	24%	−0.2	+0.4	±0.0	+0.2±3.5
FH down the line	12%	−1.8	−0.8	−1.7	−4.3±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: −2.0±1.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (42 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Christopher	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.9	−0.3	−1.1	−4.2±2.4
BH crosscourt	22%	+1.0	−1.6	−1.6	−2.2±3.2
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−4.4	+1.2	−3.3±4.5
BH slice through the middle	6%	−11.3	−1.2	−0.6	−13.0±1.8
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.0	−0.7	±0.0	−4.8±1.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.0±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Christopher Eubanks returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	41%	+4.3	−2.3	−3.0	−1.0±2.9
FH down the line	22%	+1.7	−4.4	−1.2	−3.9±4.3
FH crosscourt	15%	+5.5	−3.7	−2.0	−0.2±4.4
FH slice through the middle	12%	−4.2	−2.7	+0.1	−6.8±2.3
FH slice crosscourt	7%	−4.3	+0.6	−1.0	−4.7±2.7

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.5±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (276 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH slice through the middle	49%	−4.2	+0.1	−2.8	−6.9±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	28%	+0.5	−2.3	−1.7	−3.4±2.9
BH slice down the line	9%	−8.4	−1.1	−1.2	−10.7±3.2
BH through the middle	6%	+6.4	−1.3	−2.5	+2.7±2.6
BH crosscourt	5%	+8.8	−1.0	−2.8	+4.9±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +9.8±3.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (295 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	46%	−3.5	−2.8	−1.9	−8.1±2.9
FH crosscourt	36%	−0.2	−3.4	−4.6	−8.3±4.2
FH down the line	19%	−1.8	+0.3	−1.0	−2.5±4.3

Lean FH through the middle: −1.0±2.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (70 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH through the middle	27%	−2.9	−0.8	−0.1	−3.8±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	22%	−4.0	−0.4	±0.0	−4.4±1.8
BH slice through the middle	20%	−11.3	−2.4	−1.8	−15.5±2.1
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−1.8	−4.0	−6.0±4.8
BH crosscourt	8%	+1.0	+1.2	−3.1	−0.9±3.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +5.3±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (215 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.

Tim Van Rijthoven

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+4.5±5.5	+3.4	+1.1
FH to the middle · rally	−0.2±3.8	+0.3	−0.5
FH to their forehand · rally	−0.3±5.1	−0.8	+0.5
BH to the middle · return	−1.3±3.4	−2.7	+1.4
FH to the middle · serve +1	−1.4±4.2	−2.0	+0.6
FH to their forehand · return +1	−3.0±6.9	+0.3	−3.3

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · return	−9.6±6.5	−4.8	−4.8
FH to their backhand · rally	−7.2±5.0	−6.7	−0.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−6.9±5.3	+3.6	−10.5
FH to the middle · return	−4.9±3.8	−4.2	−0.6
FH to their forehand · return	−4.0±7.3	−6.0	+2.0

Christopher Eubanks

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+2.1±5.5	+3.3	−1.2
FH to their forehand · return +1	−1.7±6.8	−0.5	−1.1
BH to the middle · serve +1	−1.7±4.1	−3.5	+1.8
BH to the middle · rally	−1.8±3.5	−3.5	+1.7
FH to the middle · rally	−3.0±3.8	−2.1	−0.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−3.1±5.0	−0.2	−2.9

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−15.6±5.3	−8.0	−7.6
FH to their backhand · return +1	−13.8±6.7	−11.5	−2.3
FH to their forehand · return	−9.2±7.1	−3.9	−5.3
BH to their backhand · rally	−9.1±4.3	−6.6	−2.5
FH to the middle · return	−8.8±4.0	−5.3	−3.5

Against Christopher Eubanks-like opponents

Tim Van Rijthoven v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	70.6%	30.8%
Players most similar to Christopher Eubanks	1	82.9%	26.5%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Matteo Berrettini, Tallon Griekspoor, Denis Shapovalov, Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Reilly Opelka, Gabriel Diallo, Nicolas Jarry, Milos Raonic, Vasek Pospisil. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.