Game plan

Veronika Kudermetova v Coco Vandeweghe

Every number combines what Veronika Kudermetova does well with what Coco Vandeweghe allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Veronika Kudermetova wins, best of 3 26%90%: 6%–60% · best of 5: 21%

Serve points won 60.8% / 66.0% Veronika / Coco · tour 58.1%

Strengths only, no similarity priors 27%serve 60.8% / 65.6%

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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Veronika Kudermetova's record against Coco Vandeweghe's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads (lookalikes: +0.2 on serve, −3.5 on return vs expectation (461 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	Veronika	Coco
Direction choice	+0.11 ±0.06 better than 73%	−0.06 ±0.13 better than 44%
Shot selection	+0.10 ±0.11 better than 55%	+0.37 ±0.13 better than 86%
Execution	−0.90 ±0.37 better than 21%	−1.34 ±0.60 better than 13%
Points left on the table	2.41 ±0.11 lower than 75%	2.73 ±0.22 lower than 28%

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.

Veronika Kudermetova serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Veronika wins	v Coco	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	39%	63%	70%	67.4%±7.5	39%
Body	16%	53%	59%	55.5%±9.9	1% ▼
T	45%	75%	72%	78.7%±5.6	60% ▲

Optimal v Coco Vandeweghe: +1.4±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving T every time would read +8.2 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Veronika wins	v Coco	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	41%	72%	70%	75.8%±6.5	56% ▲
Body	17%	53%	63%	60.4%±10.4	2% ▼
T	42%	60%	70%	66.0%±7.3	42%

Optimal v Coco Vandeweghe: +1.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide every time would read +6.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Coco Vandeweghe serving

Deuce court

1st serve	Now	Coco wins	v Veronika	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	42%	72%	68%	73.5%±6.5	57% ▲
Body	12%	68%	62%	71.4%±10.0	0% ▼
T	46%	77%	70%	79.3%±6.3	43% ▼

Optimal v Veronika Kudermetova: +0.6±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.4 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serve	Now	Coco wins	v Veronika	Matchup	Optimal
Wide	40%	75%	67%	75.9%±7.4	39%
Body	15%	53%	58%	55.0%±10.9	0% ▼
T	45%	70%	66%	71.2%±7.1	61% ▲

Optimal v Veronika Kudermetova: +1.2±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix. Serving wide 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.

Veronika Kudermetova returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Coco	Value
FH through the middle	44%	+4.2	−3.1	−3.7	−2.7±2.7
FH crosscourt	30%	+5.3	−3.1	−2.6	−0.4±4.0
FH down the line	17%	+1.5	−2.9	−0.7	−2.1±4.6
FH slice through the middle	5%	−6.7	−0.6	−1.4	−8.7±2.3
FH slice crosscourt	3%	−6.6	−0.3	−0.3	−7.2±2.3

Lean FH crosscourt: +2.0±3.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (630 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Coco	Value
BH through the middle	48%	+6.0	−1.4	−2.2	+2.4±2.6
BH crosscourt	29%	+7.7	−2.2	−2.7	+2.8±3.5
BH down the line	13%	+2.2	−1.7	−3.0	−2.5±4.6
BH slice through the middle	4%	−6.2	−1.2	−1.2	−8.7±2.3
BH slice crosscourt	4%	−4.2	−3.0	−4.0	−11.1±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.1±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (502 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Coco	Value
FH crosscourt	45%	+0.5	−3.4	−2.7	−5.6±4.4
FH through the middle	45%	−3.2	−2.7	−1.6	−7.5±3.1
FH down the line	7%	−0.6	+2.0	−1.1	+0.4±4.7
BH through the middle	3%	−1.0	+0.6	−2.0	−2.4±1.9

Lean FH crosscourt: +0.4±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (166 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Coco	Value
BH crosscourt	47%	+1.5	+1.3	−1.7	+1.1±3.3
BH through the middle	39%	−2.6	+0.1	−2.0	−4.5±2.6
BH down the line	12%	−0.5	−2.1	−2.8	−5.5±5.1
FH inside-out	2%	+1.4	+0.9	−1.1	+1.1±3.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (290 returns charted)

Coco Vandeweghe returning

1st serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Veronika	Value
FH through the middle	55%	+4.2	−3.6	−0.1	+0.5±2.6
FH down the line	23%	+1.5	−5.6	+2.0	−2.1±4.5
FH crosscourt	22%	+5.3	+0.1	+1.0	+6.4±4.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.2±3.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (216 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Veronika	Value
BH through the middle	50%	+6.0	−2.4	−1.1	+2.6±2.4
BH crosscourt	24%	+7.7	−2.5	−1.6	+3.6±3.4
BH down the line	14%	+2.2	−1.1	−2.8	−1.8±4.6
BH slice through the middle	7%	−6.2	−1.9	−2.7	−10.8±2.4
BH slice crosscourt	3%	−4.2	+0.3	−4.4	−8.2±2.5

Lean BH crosscourt: +3.0±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (228 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Veronika	Value
FH through the middle	40%	−3.2	−0.3	−0.4	−3.9±2.7
FH down the line	33%	−0.6	−3.0	−0.6	−4.2±4.7
FH crosscourt	28%	+0.5	−0.6	−1.4	−1.5±3.8

Lean FH through the middle: −0.6±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (40 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

Return	Now	Tour	Own	v Veronika	Value
BH through the middle	47%	−2.6	−5.1	−0.5	−8.3±2.4
BH crosscourt	28%	+1.5	−3.7	+1.1	−1.1±3.2
BH down the line	20%	−0.5	−2.4	−1.5	−4.4±5.0
FH through the middle	5%	−2.7	−2.0	−0.4	−5.1±2.1

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.3±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (167 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.

Veronika Kudermetova

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · serve +1	+2.0±5.6	+0.6	+1.4
FH to the middle · rally	+1.5±3.6	−0.3	+1.8
BH to the middle · serve +1	+0.2±3.7	+0.1	+0.1
FH to the middle · serve +1	−0.9±3.7	+0.4	−1.3
BH to their forehand · serve +1	−1.4±6.6	−1.4	+0.1
BH to their forehand · rally	−3.0±6.1	−7.0	+4.0

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their forehand · return	−9.6±5.0	−3.2	−6.4
FH to the middle · return	−7.7±4.0	−2.7	−5.0
FH to their forehand · return +1	−7.2±5.6	−0.6	−6.6
BH to their backhand · rally	−6.7±4.8	−2.2	−4.5
BH to their backhand · serve +1	−6.3±5.1	−2.9	−3.4

Coco Vandeweghe

Favour

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
BH to their forehand · rally	+7.0±6.3	+6.0	+1.0
FH to their forehand · rally	+5.9±5.0	+5.2	+0.7
FH to their forehand · return +1	+1.5±5.6	+3.7	−2.2
BH to their backhand · rally	+0.6±4.8	−1.1	+1.7
BH to the middle · rally	+0.6±3.4	−1.5	+2.1
FH to the middle · serve +1	+0.3±3.3	±0.0	+0.2

Avoid

Shot	Edge	Own	Theirs
FH to their backhand · rally	−9.1±5.7	−6.3	−2.8
FH to their backhand · return	−7.7±6.2	−8.2	+0.4
BH to their forehand · return	−6.3±6.3	−1.4	−4.9
BH to the middle · return	−5.7±3.4	−3.8	−1.9
FH to the middle · return +1	−4.2±3.8	−2.8	−1.4

Against Coco Vandeweghe-like opponents

Veronika Kudermetova v	Matches	Serve pts won	Return pts won
All charted opponents	–	58.0%	41.7%
Players most similar to Coco Vandeweghe	3	57.5%	34.3%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Elena Rybakina, Naomi Osaka, Liudmila Samsonova, Barbora Krejcikova, Lulu Sun, Arianne Hartono, Caroline Garcia, Rebecca Marino, Camila Giorgi. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.