RallyIQ

Game plan

Ugo Humbert v Miomir Kecmanovic

Every number combines what Ugo Humbert 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

Ugo Humbert wins, best of 3 63%90%: 34%–86% · best of 5: 66%
Serve points won 64.7% / 62.2% Ugo / Miomir · tour 63.5%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 57%serve 63.9% / 62.5%

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. Both were charted enough in the last three seasons, so those carry the most weight. The result is then nudged by Ugo Humbert's record against Miomir Kecmanovic's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +3.6 on serve, +2.5 on return vs expectation (864 points); head-to-head: +1.1 on serve, −3.8 on return vs expectation (157 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

CareerUgoMiomir
Direction choice−0.09 ±0.06
better than 34%
−0.06 ±0.09
better than 43%
Shot selection−0.20 ±0.13
better than 30%
−0.28 ±0.10
better than 25%
Execution+0.66 ±0.45
better than 87%
+1.00 ±0.38
better than 95%
Points left on the table2.97 ±0.12
lower than 21%
2.31 ±0.15
lower than 84%

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: Ugo Humbert +1.15, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.26. 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.

Ugo Humbert serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowUgo winsv MiomirMatchupOptimal
Wide45%78%76%80.2%±3.558% ▲
Body5%64%58%59.0%±9.80% ▼
T49%70%80%75.8%±4.042% ▼

Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +0.5±0.5 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +3.3 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowUgo winsv MiomirMatchupOptimal
Wide53%72%73%72.6%±4.045% ▼
Body5%59%58%53.3%±10.20% ▼
T42%81%73%81.4%±3.755% ▲

Optimal v Miomir Kecmanovic: +0.7±0.6 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +6.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Miomir Kecmanovic serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowMiomir winsv UgoMatchupOptimal
Wide41%68%73%67.5%±4.452% ▲
Body16%61%65%62.9%±8.62% ▼
T43%73%75%73.7%±4.346% ▲

Optimal v Ugo Humbert: +0.7±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowMiomir winsv UgoMatchupOptimal
Wide45%71%79%78.0%±4.158% ▲
Body14%65%68%70.4%±8.51% ▼
T41%68%73%68.8%±4.441%

Optimal v Ugo Humbert: +0.8±0.8 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +4.8 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.

Ugo Humbert returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MiomirValue
FH through the middle41%+4.3+1.8+1.1+7.1±2.0
FH crosscourt22%+5.5+2.7+1.8+10.0±3.7
FH down the line20%+1.7+3.4+4.0+9.1±3.9
FH slice through the middle12%−4.2+0.4+0.5−3.3±2.3
FH slice crosscourt2%−4.3−1.1+1.0−4.4±2.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.6±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (698 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MiomirValue
BH through the middle45%+6.4+2.6+2.4+11.4±1.7
BH down the line16%+4.2+4.7+1.4+10.3±3.7
BH crosscourt15%+8.8+1.8−0.5+10.1±3.4
BH slice through the middle13%−4.2−1.2+0.9−4.5±2.3
BH slice down the line5%−8.4+0.6−0.8−8.6±3.5

Lean BH through the middle: +4.4±1.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (963 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MiomirValue
FH through the middle58%−3.5+0.6−0.1−3.0±2.2
FH crosscourt21%−0.2−2.0+3.7+1.4±4.2
FH down the line19%−1.8−2.9+3.3−1.3±4.5
BH through the middle3%+0.1+0.6+0.3+1.0±1.4

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.1±3.7 per 100 returns v the current mix (339 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv MiomirValue
BH through the middle58%−2.9+2.5+0.3−0.2±1.7
BH crosscourt21%+1.0+0.6+0.1+1.7±3.1
BH down the line20%−0.2+2.7+0.4+2.9±4.2
BH slice through the middle1%−11.3±0.0±0.0−11.3±1.1

Lean BH down the line: +2.2±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (503 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Miomir Kecmanovic returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv UgoValue
FH through the middle51%+4.3+2.7+2.7+9.6±2.1
FH crosscourt21%+5.5+0.3+4.9+10.7±3.8
FH down the line13%+1.7+4.3−3.9+2.1±4.3
FH slice through the middle10%−4.2−0.1+1.5−2.8±2.1
FH slice down the line3%−4.3−0.3−0.6−5.1±3.0

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.7±3.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (845 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv UgoValue
BH crosscourt37%+8.8+3.2+5.3+17.3±2.8
BH through the middle35%+6.4+1.6+4.5+12.5±1.9
BH slice through the middle13%−4.2−0.2+2.1−2.3±2.2
BH slice crosscourt9%+0.5+0.5+5.2+6.2±3.0
BH down the line5%+4.2+0.7−1.3+3.6±4.2

Lean BH crosscourt: +6.3±1.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (721 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv UgoValue
FH through the middle56%−3.5+0.6−0.2−3.1±2.6
FH crosscourt28%−0.2+2.8−0.2+2.4±4.4
FH down the line16%−1.8+1.1+0.6−0.1±4.6

Lean FH crosscourt: +3.5±3.6 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv UgoValue
BH crosscourt46%+1.0+2.0−0.1+2.9±2.4
BH through the middle42%−2.9+1.8+1.2+0.1±1.7
BH down the line6%−0.2+0.5+1.2+1.5±4.7
FH through the middle3%−2.9+0.9−0.2−2.2±2.1
FH inside-in2%+0.6+2.6−0.2+2.9±3.9

Lean BH crosscourt: +1.6±1.5 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.

Ugo Humbert

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH volley to their forehand · rally+5.4±6.1+3.7+1.7
BH to their forehand · rally+4.5±2.3+1.4+3.0
FH to their backhand · return+4.4±3.0+1.4+3.0
BH to their backhand · return+3.9±2.2+2.7+1.2
BH to the middle · return+3.9±1.3+2.6+1.3
BH to their forehand · return+3.5±3.6+4.1−0.7

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · return +1−3.7±2.6−3.9+0.2
FH slice to the middle · rally−3.6±2.6−4.5+0.9
BH slice to the middle · rally−2.1±1.9−1.7−0.4
BH slice to their backhand · rally−2.1±2.1−1.5−0.5
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.7±3.1−0.6−1.1

Miomir Kecmanovic

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their backhand · return+8.3±3.4+4.5+3.8
BH to their forehand · rally+5.1±2.3+3.2+2.0
BH to their forehand · return+5.1±3.5+3.3+1.9
BH to their forehand · serve +1+4.8±4.0+2.9+1.9
FH to the middle · return+3.9±1.7+2.5+1.5
BH to their forehand · return +1+3.9±4.2+3.5+0.5

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH slice to their backhand · rally−3.8±2.0−0.2−3.6
BH to their backhand · return +1−0.9±2.8+0.9−1.8
BH slice to the middle · rally−0.8±1.9−0.7−0.1
BH to their backhand · rally−0.7±1.6+0.8−1.6
FH to their forehand · rally−0.7±1.7+2.8−3.5

Against Miomir Kecmanovic-like opponents

Ugo Humbert vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–66.7%34.7%
Players most similar to Miomir Kecmanovic7 66.6%38.5%
Miomir Kecmanovic (charted head-to-head)1 65.4%32.9%

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.

Charted head-to-head