Game plan

Tim Van Rijthoven v Pedro Martinez

Every number combines what Tim Van Rijthoven does well with what Pedro Martinez 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 86%90%: 59%–97% · best of 5: 91%

Serve points won 71.7% / 62.8% Tim / Pedro · tour 65.7%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 88%serve 72.3% / 62.6%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Van Rijthoven's record against Pedro Martinez's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: −7.2 on serve, −3.1 on return vs expectation (221 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	Pedro
Direction choice	−0.02 ±0.06 better than 52%	−0.06 ±0.08 better than 43%
Shot selection	−0.41 ±0.13 better than 16%	−0.06 ±0.23 better than 46%
Execution	−1.17 ±0.75 better than 20%	+0.23 ±0.43 better than 77%
Points left on the table	2.62 ±0.13 lower than 47%	2.66 ±0.12 lower than 43%

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 Pedro	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	43%	78%	75%	79.8%±5.1	36% ▼
Body	6%	63%	70%	69.3%±11.7	0% ▼
T	51%	82%	76%	82.4%±4.8	64% ▲

Optimal v Pedro Martinez: +0.9±0.7 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Tim wins	v Pedro	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	81%	71%	80.4%±5.4	47% ▼
Body	6%	66%	56%	60.1%±13.5	0% ▼
T	40%	74%	73%	75.4%±6.4	53% ▲

Optimal v Pedro Martinez: +0.5±0.7 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.

Pedro Martinez serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Pedro wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	65%	78%	71.0%±6.7	39% ▼
Body	11%	59%	67%	63.3%±10.0	0% ▼
T	48%	68%	79%	72.3%±6.2	61% ▲

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +0.6±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Pedro wins	v Tim	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	54%	63%	73%	63.5%±6.8	54%
Body	16%	59%	59%	55.2%±10.9	3% ▼
T	30%	62%	78%	69.0%±7.6	43% ▲

Optimal v Tim Van Rijthoven: +1.0±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +5.2 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 Pedro	Value
FH through the middle	40%	+4.3	−3.6	+1.7	+2.3±2.6
FH slice through the middle	20%	−4.2	−1.7	+1.7	−4.2±2.3
FH crosscourt	17%	+5.5	−0.8	+6.1	+10.9±4.2
FH down the line	14%	+1.7	−3.4	+1.6	−0.1±4.3
FH slice down the line	9%	−4.3	−1.7	+0.8	−5.1±2.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +9.5±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (247 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Pedro	Value
BH slice through the middle	44%	−4.2	−1.4	−1.4	−7.0±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	17%	+0.5	+0.2	−2.2	−1.5±2.9
BH through the middle	13%	+6.4	+1.6	+1.6	+9.6±2.4
BH down the line	11%	+4.2	−1.9	+4.4	+6.7±4.6
BH slice down the line	8%	−8.4	−0.8	+1.5	−7.7±3.0
BH crosscourt	6%	+8.8	+0.1	+1.7	+10.6±2.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +11.9±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (327 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Pedro	Value
FH through the middle	64%	−3.5	−1.6	+1.2	−3.9±2.7
FH crosscourt	24%	−0.2	+0.4	−1.6	−1.4±3.8
FH down the line	12%	−1.8	−0.8	−1.7	−4.2±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: −0.5±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 Pedro	Value
BH through the middle	51%	−2.9	−0.3	+1.0	−2.2±2.4
BH crosscourt	22%	+1.0	−1.6	+1.2	+0.6±3.1
BH down the line	11%	−0.2	−4.4	−0.8	−5.4±4.8
BH slice through the middle	6%	−11.3	−1.2	±0.0	−12.5±1.3
BH slice crosscourt	5%	−4.0	−0.7	±0.0	−4.8±1.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.1±2.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (183 returns charted)

Pedro Martinez returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	43%	+4.3	+2.1	−3.0	+3.4±2.8
FH crosscourt	21%	+5.5	+1.1	−2.0	+4.6±4.4
FH slice through the middle	13%	−4.2	+1.7	+0.1	−2.5±2.3
FH down the line	12%	+1.7	+1.9	−1.2	+2.4±4.3
FH slice crosscourt	8%	−4.3	+0.6	−1.0	−4.7±2.8

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.8±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (426 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH through the middle	41%	+6.4	+2.2	−2.5	+6.1±2.5
BH crosscourt	27%	+8.8	−3.4	−2.8	+2.6±3.4
BH down the line	13%	+4.2	−0.4	−1.3	+2.4±4.6
BH slice through the middle	12%	−4.2	−1.5	−2.8	−8.5±2.5
BH slice crosscourt	4%	+0.5	−1.5	−1.7	−2.7±2.8

Lean BH through the middle: +4.1±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (517 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
FH through the middle	52%	−3.5	+1.2	−1.9	−4.1±2.9
FH crosscourt	37%	−0.2	−0.4	−4.6	−5.3±4.3
FH down the line	10%	−1.8	+0.6	−1.0	−2.1±4.2

Lean FH through the middle: +0.2±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (107 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Tim	Value
BH through the middle	41%	−2.9	−0.2	−0.1	−3.2±2.3
BH crosscourt	30%	+1.0	±0.0	−3.1	−2.2±3.1
BH down the line	14%	−0.2	+5.2	−4.0	+1.0±5.0
FH inside-out	7%	+1.0	−0.7	−1.0	−0.7±3.6
FH through the middle	5%	−2.9	−0.7	−1.9	−5.5±2.3

Lean BH down the line: +3.3±4.5 per 100 returns v the current mix (340 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 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
BH slice to their forehand · rally	+6.2±4.4	+2.7	+3.5
FH to their backhand · serve +1	+6.2±4.8	+3.6	+2.6
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+6.0±4.9	+3.4	+2.6
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+4.2±3.0	+5.2	−0.9
BH to the middle · return	+3.0±3.3	−2.7	+5.7
FH to their forehand · return +1	+2.7±6.0	+0.3	+2.4

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	−6.4±4.4	−6.7	+0.2
BH to their forehand · return	−5.6±5.8	−8.3	+2.7
FH to their backhand · return	−4.5±5.2	−4.8	+0.3
BH to their forehand · rally	−3.8±6.0	−3.1	−0.7
BH to the middle · rally	−3.5±2.7	−4.0	+0.5

Pedro Martinez

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to the middle · serve +1	+4.1±3.4	+2.3	+1.8
BH to the middle · rally	+3.9±3.1	+2.3	+1.7
BH to their forehand · rally	+3.0±5.3	+3.9	−0.9
FH to the middle · rally	+3.0±3.4	+3.8	−0.9
FH slice to the middle · return	+1.2±3.5	+3.0	−1.8
BH slice to their backhand · rally	+0.8±3.5	+1.4	−0.6

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	−5.3±5.8	±0.0	−5.3
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−4.6±4.9	+3.0	−7.6
BH to their backhand · return	−4.0±4.6	+0.7	−4.8
BH to their forehand · return	−4.0±5.9	+0.8	−4.7
FH to their backhand · serve +1	−2.8±4.6	+0.1	−2.9

Against Pedro Martinez-like opponents

Tim Van Rijthoven v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	70.6%	30.8%
Players most similar to Pedro Martinez	1	54.8%	26.8%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Lorenzo Musetti, Novak Djokovic, Marton Fucsovics, Roberto Bautista Agut, Nuno Borges, Robin Haase, Pablo Andujar, Filip Krajinovic, Philipp Kohlschreiber, Gaston Gaudio. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.