RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 21 charted matches · 2017–2026

Ajla Tomljanovic

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.1% ±3.1 raw 54.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,438 points
Return points won 43.6% ±3.1 raw 39.3% · tour 43.7% · 1,435 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 −0.42 ±0.09 better than 1% of WTA · raw −0.45
Shot selection −0.34 ±0.13 better than 19% of WTA · raw −0.39
Execution +0.24 ±0.70 better than 70% of WTA · raw −0.12
Tactical adaptability −0.13 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.06 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 9% 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 7,500 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ajla Tomljanovic 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 forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 507 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 40% 41.9%±5.4 41.3%
FH crosscourt 28% 48.7%±6.5 46.7%
FH down the line 19% 47.8%±7.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 8% 32.0%±9.7 29.2%
FH slice down the line 2% 27.7%±13.0 24.3%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 38.0%±14.6 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 473 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 22% 51.0%±7.4 46.2%
FH through the middle 20% 45.7%±7.7 45.8%
FH crosscourt 18% 47.2%±8.0 52.7%
FH down the line 15% 46.6%±8.7 52.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 51.5%±9.3 50.9%
BH down the line 11% 37.1%±9.5 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 3% 48.5%±13.9 44.8%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 370 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 47.9%±6.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 38% 41.4%±6.4 43.3%
BH down the line 7% 47.6%±12.0 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 28.6%±11.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 39.7%±13.1 40.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 300 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 49.9%±7.0 47.0%
FH through the middle 32% 39.0%±7.5 41.5%
FH down the line 17% 47.6%±9.8 46.4%
FH slice through the middle 9% 28.0%±10.9 29.3%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 36.5%±14.2 31.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Ajla Tomljanovic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 174 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 45% 64% / 66%
Body 30% 23% 55% / 57%
T 30% 33% 72% / 68%

701 normal · 40 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 37% 60% / 66%
Body 22% 31% ▲ 47% / 56%
T 39% 32% 66% / 64%

555 normal · 134 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
Wide40% 54.5%±4.5 n=297 40%
Body29% 53.6%±5.2 n=218 14% ▼
T31% 60.7%±5.0 n=226 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 52.9%±4.7 n=270 39%
Body23% 43.1%±5.9 n=161 8% ▼
T37% 56.5%±4.8 n=258 53% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.005): serve T more. Gap 4.5 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.02 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: +6.7±5.3 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. (403 repeats, 985 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 90 36% −7.9±7.2
1stAd courtT 183 36% +0.5±5.4
1stAd courtWide 147 23% −11.1±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 107 41% −1.9±6.9
1stDeuce courtT 143 23% −8.6±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 197 32% −1.8±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 139 57% +1.5±6.3
2ndAd courtT 40 46% −8.6±9.8
2ndAd courtWide 86 53% −0.9±7.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 179 55% +0.7±5.7
2ndDeuce courtT 46 55% −1.0±9.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 72 50% −3.6±8.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 58% · −0.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · −0.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 58% · −0.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 56% · −2.8±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 55% · −3.6±9.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.1% · won 57% · +15.6±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 55% · +13.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 51% · +9.2±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 50% · +8.3±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 47% · +5.6±11.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 54% · +6.3±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 1.7% · won 56% · +8.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.3% · won 52% · +5.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 54% · +7.0±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 52% · +4.5±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 54% · +7.4±9.8 vs own baseline · +9.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (2/8), Kiki Bertens (2/7)
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 53% · +6.8±10.0 vs own baseline · +12.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Belinda Bencic (2/7), Elina Svitolina (6/11)
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 56% · +9.5±12.3 vs own baseline · +26.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 54% · +7.9±11.7 vs own baseline · +8.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 53% · +6.7±11.4 vs own baseline · +12.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +7.0±11.8 vs own baseline · +14.2 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

BH to their forehand · rally+3.7179
FH to their forehand · rally+2.0444
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.7142
FH to the middle · rally+1.6459
BH to the middle · return +1+1.2140

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.6150
BH to their forehand · return−3.5120
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.2271
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.9267
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.2184

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.35, Caroline Wozniacki +1.86, Tatjana Maria +1.56, Daria Kasatkina +1.41, Angelique Kerber +1.40

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.69, Angelique Kerber +1.54, Marie Bouzkova +1.49, Katie Volynets +1.11, Elina Avanesyan +1.09

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle42%
Deep returns36%
Chipped returns15%
Avg rally length4.2
T serves · ad37%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Forehand share53%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice13%
Wide serves · ad39%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
BH down the line18%
1st serve in60%
Points at net4%
FH down the line25%
Unforced errors / shot8.7%
Point-ending shots19.8%
T serves · deuce30%
Run-around forehands1%

Plays most like

  1. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  3. Lauren Davis 2014–2023 plan v
  4. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  6. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches