MODEL PREDICTION · 2026-07-17

V. Vacherot vs R. Collignonprediction

Gstaad
✗ Missed
VACHEROTWIN PROBABILITYCOLLIGNON
64%
model prob.
@2.30
odds · 43% impl.
H2H 1–1 Vacherot🌡23° · 61% hum1050 m altitude📈Form 7/10 · 2✓
THE MODEL'S REASONING

Ranking: #19 vs #43 (better ranked)

Recent form: 7/10 in recent matches

More rested: 52d vs opponent's 17d

Model 64% vs market 43% → the model sees it as MORE likely than the odds

WATCH FOR

!Returning from a long layoff (52d) — possible rustiness

Calibrated model probability (~65% out-of-sample accuracy). Not a guarantee: the model ≈ the market on average, so the odds already capture almost all the edge. 18+ · gamble responsibly.
@1.57
fair odds
+46.7%
expected value
HOW EACH FACTOR MATTERS
Level (Elo/ranking)▸ Vacherot●●●
Vacherot is ranked #19 vs #43 and the baseline model gives him 64% vs 47%, despite Collignon's slightly higher Elo (2015 vs 2002).
Form▸ Vacherot●●●
Vacherot's 7-3 run includes wins over De Minaur (Elo 2044) and Musetti (Elo 2042); Collignon's 6-4 stretch lists no quality wins.
Rest▸ Vacherot●●
Model factors cite 52 days of rest for Vacherot vs 17 for Collignon, though the listed risk flags possible rustiness from the layoff.
Serve/return▸ Collignon●●
Collignon's serve wins 69% of points, his main weapon, but his 31% return rate leaves break chances Vacherot could exploit.
Altitude▸ Collignon
At 1,050 m the thinner air speeds the ball, amplifying Collignon's serve-reliant game (69% service points won).
Weather▸ Vacherot
Warm, humid air (23°C, 61% humidity) slows the ball, which can blunt a serve-first style like Collignon's 69% serve-win profile.
Head-to-head= Even
Series tied 1-1; Collignon's win came in 2023 at Challenger level, Vacherot's in 2022 at ITF level — dated and low-tier evidence.
CLASS GAP

Vacherot holds the clearer profile on paper: a #19 ranking against Collignon's #43, and a baseline model score of 64% versus 47%. That gap is reinforced by ranking trend — Vacherot has improved by 2 spots while Collignon has slipped 21 — suggesting diverging trajectories right now.

The one wrinkle is Elo, where Collignon (2015) actually rates fractionally above Vacherot (2002). That keeps this from being a one-sided class gap; it is a case where surface-level indicators (ranking, form) point one way while a single rating system points the other.

FORM AND MOMENTUM

Vacherot's recent form is the strongest single differentiator in this data set. His 7-3 record over the last ten matches includes wins over De Minaur (Elo 2044) and Musetti (Elo 2042) — results well above his own level. Collignon's 6-4 record over the same span carries no listed quality wins.

This form gap matters more than a single Elo number: beating top-50-caliber players signals Vacherot is playing above his ranking right now, while Collignon's wins have not been tested against similar opposition.

CONDITIONS AND STYLE

Collignon's game leans heavily on his serve (69% of service points won) but his return is comparatively weak (31%), a split that suggests he needs to hold consistently to stay competitive. The 1,050 m altitude in Gstaad thins the air and speeds the ball, which should amplify his serve advantage somewhat.

Working against that, the warm and humid conditions (23°C, 61% humidity, 13 km/h wind) tend to slow the ball and lengthen rallies — a dynamic that historically penalizes serve-dependent players more than all-around ones. With no serve/return numbers available for Vacherot, this cuts as a mild headwind for Collignon rather than a hard edge for either player.

RUST VS RECOVERY

The model's rest factor favors Vacherot, citing 52 days since his last match against Collignon's 17 — extended recovery time that should help physically over a long tournament run. But the data's own risk flag notes this same layoff could bring rustiness, a fair caution given how much time off is unusual heading into a tour-level match.

This is a factor that cuts both ways: fresher legs are an asset, but form sharpness from repetition is not guaranteed after over seven weeks away.

VALUE CHECK

The model rates Vacherot at 64% to win, well above the market's implied 43% (odds of 2.3), producing a stated expected value of +46.7%. That is a large gap, and it is worth treating with some caution rather than at face value — a difference of this size between model and market usually reflects either a genuine mispricing or a blind spot in the model's inputs (surface data, for instance, is null here).

Being the favorite is not the same as holding value, and this model's method is calibrated to roughly 65% out-of-sample accuracy — solid but not infallible. The head-to-head split (1-1, dated results) and the Elo discrepancy noted above are reasons for some humility. If backing Vacherot, it should be understood as a data-supported lean, not a guaranteed outcome.

Impact and analysis from real match data (Elo, form, head-to-head, rest, surface vs baseline, weather, altitude). The model ≈ the market on average; the odds already capture almost all the edge. 18+ · gamble responsibly.

Analyze today's matches →