RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 53 charted matches · 2007–2018

Agnieszka Radwanska

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.3% ±2.7 raw 57.1% · tour 56.3% · 3,962 points
Return points won 46.1% ±2.8 raw 44.3% · tour 43.7% · 3,681 points

Serve and return points won, refitted against every opponent at once so a record built on weak or strong opposition is put on the same scale. Career, all surfaces, with a 90% margin. Raw is the plain share of points won.

Value per 100 shots

Direction choice +0.03 ±0.09 better than 57% of WTA · raw +0.02
Shot selection −0.08 ±0.09 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.09
Execution +1.79 ±0.28 better than 98% of WTA · raw +1.70
Tactical adaptability −0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 52 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.59 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 53% of WTA

Points gained per 100 shots compared with an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for the strength of the opponents faced, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Raw is before the opponent adjustment. Built on 21,026 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Agnieszka Radwanska goes on to win after each option in the positions they face most often, shrunk toward tour average when the sample is small. Showing the 8 most-used options; teal marks the best one with at least 30 shots.

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,597 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 46.6%±3.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 46.3%±3.9 43.3%
BH down the line 14% 51.6%±5.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 49.0%±7.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 31.6%±7.4 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 29.5%±10.4 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 1% 27.2%±11.3 27.1%
BH drop shot crosscourt 1% 38.8%±12.7 47.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,205 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 49.2%±3.5 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 45.9%±4.6 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 46.6%±5.2 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 34.0%±8.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 33.4%±9.9 31.9%
FH lob through the middle 1% 27.4%±12.2 29.4%
FH slice down the line 1% 29.9%±13.1 24.3%
FH down the line + approach 1% 59.6%±14.3 65.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,020 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 20% 53.8%±5.5 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 55.6%±5.9 46.2%
FH through the middle 16% 45.7%±6.1 45.8%
FH crosscourt 16% 55.8%±6.1 52.7%
BH crosscourt 13% 44.7%±6.7 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 53.0%±8.2 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 4% 67.3%±9.6 68.6%
BH slice through the middle 2% 45.4%±12.3 44.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 922 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 43.1%±4.4 47.9%
BH through the middle 24% 38.1%±5.1 42.7%
BH down the line 16% 41.6%±6.2 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 8% 36.1%±8.1 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 46.0%±9.1 38.7%
BH slice down the line 3% 33.6%±11.7 34.0%
BH drop shot crosscourt 2% 56.9%±12.9 48.7%
BH lob through the middle 2% 27.4%±12.2 29.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Agnieszka Radwanska's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 467 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 39% 61% / 66%
Body 18% 18% 57% / 57%
T 39% 43% 71% / 68%

1,940 normal · 105 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 38% 70% / 66%
Body 18% 14% 58% / 56%
T 47% 48% 60% / 64%

1,534 normal · 362 break-point 1st serves

Is the serve mix in equilibrium?

Game theory says a well-mixed server wins equally often with every direction they use. If one direction wins more, it's underused and points are being left behind. This is the minimax test Walker and Wooders ran on Wimbledon finals, applied to every charted first serve. Win rates include faults. "Optimal" allows for returners reading a habit. A direction loses 0.19 points per 100 serves for every 10 points of habitual usage, measured from WTA servers whose mix drifted between matches. Shifts stay within the range servers' habits actually vary, the only range that response was measured over.

Deuce court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide43% 57.0%±2.7 n=875 42%
Body18% 55.1%±4.1 n=362 3% ▼
T40% 60.4%±2.8 n=808 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.11).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide36% 57.4%±3.0 n=682 51% ▲
Body17% 55.0%±4.4 n=323 2% ▼
T47% 55.5%±2.7 n=891 47%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.63).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.52 points per 100 first serves What the optimal mix would win over the current one, both courts. More exploitable than 100% of WTA servers. Tested on matches they weren't fitted on, WTA mixes picked this way win 0.42 per 100 first serves on average.

Repeating the previous direction to the same court: −2.3±2.9 points per 100 against switching. Negative means returners read repeats. Tour-wide, repeating costs women about 0.4 points per 100 and costs men nothing, so men's returners don't measurably anticipate direction. (1,254 repeats, 2,581 switches.)

Return by serve direction

Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 250 48% +3.7±4.9
1stAd courtT 435 36% +0.1±3.7
1stAd courtWide 427 37% +2.2±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 265 43% ±0.0±4.7
1stDeuce courtT 384 34% +1.8±3.8
1stDeuce courtWide 507 31% −3.3±3.3
2ndAd courtBody 305 59% +4.2±4.4
2ndAd courtT 137 58% +3.4±6.3
2ndAd courtWide 189 55% +1.3±5.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 384 54% −0.3±4.0
2ndDeuce courtT 192 61% +4.7±5.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 157 53% −0.8±6.0

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Agnieszka Radwanska's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 61% · +1.4±7.7 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 56% · −3.9±7.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.3% · won 54% · −6.1±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 54% · −6.0±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 52% · −7.9±7.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 58% · +13.4±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.1% · won 57% · +12.2±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.1% · won 55% · +9.9±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 51% · +5.8±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 50% · +4.6±6.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 57% · +9.5±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 58% · +10.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 52% · +4.6±5.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · +5.1±5.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 54% · +6.3±7.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Agnieszka Radwanska wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 57% · +8.4±8.3 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Svetlana Kuznetsova (3/7), Caroline Wozniacki (6/11)
  2. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.2% · won 61% · +12.2±11.6 vs own baseline · +27.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +7.1±8.5 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (5/10), Svetlana Kuznetsova (6/12)
  4. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 62% · +13.2±12.1 vs own baseline · +28.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Garbine Muguruza (4/6)
  5. BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.9±10.9 vs own baseline · +17.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Svetlana Kuznetsova (5/7)
  6. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.6% · won 55% · +6.6±8.6 vs own baseline · +15.5 vs tour on the same sequence

Strengths and vulnerabilities

Value per 100 shots compared with the average player hitting (strengths) or facing (vulnerabilities) the same shot. Only shot types seen at least 120 times.

Hurts opponents most with

T 2nd serve · ad court+5.0142
T 2nd serve · deuce court+4.4256
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+3.8290
BH to their backhand · rally+3.21,255
BH to their backhand · return+3.0435

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−6.3335
FH to their backhand · return−4.6343
FH to their forehand · return−3.6496
BH to their forehand · return +1−3.4230
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.7523

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Alexandra Eala, Magdalena Frech, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.

Avg rally length4.8
T serves · ad47%
FH down the line33%
1st serve in66%
Drop shots / shot2.3%
Points at net10%
Through the middle31%
T serves · deuce40%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Backhand slice16%
Serve & volley1%
Chipped returns10%
BH down the line20%
Wide serves · ad36%
Run-around forehands2%
Forehand share51%
Deep returns27%
Point-ending shots16.5%
Unforced errors / shot6.7%

Plays most like

  1. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  3. Linda Fruhvirtova 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v
  6. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v
  7. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches