RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 27 charted matches · 2015–2025

Aliaksandra Sasnovich

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.0% ±2.9 raw 52.6% · tour 56.3% · 1,752 points
Return points won 43.8% ±2.9 raw 42.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,808 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 +0.06 ±0.10 better than 67% of WTA · raw +0.08
Shot selection +0.01 ±0.15 better than 46% of WTA · raw +0.03
Execution −1.60 ±0.56 better than 9% of WTA · raw −1.44
Tactical adaptability +0.27 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 27 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.36 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 80% 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 8,242 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Aliaksandra Sasnovich 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 middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 490 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 49.4%±6.5 52.7%
FH down the line 18% 49.5%±8.0 52.2%
BH through the middle 14% 41.8%±8.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 14% 55.3%±8.7 50.9%
FH through the middle 12% 45.7%±9.3 45.8%
BH down the line 11% 52.7%±9.5 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 383 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 46.7%±6.0 46.7%
FH down the line 25% 51.3%±7.7 44.9%
FH through the middle 24% 36.3%±7.5 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 6% 22.9%±10.5 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 345 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 44.0%±6.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 42.5%±8.2 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 48.4%±9.6 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 31.9%±12.0 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 32.2%±12.2 34.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 303 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 21% 56.5%±8.9 52.3%
BH crosscourt 16% 54.6%±9.9 50.8%
FH down the line 16% 48.6%±10.0 53.0%
BH down the line 15% 47.9%±10.2 50.6%
BH through the middle 15% 53.5%±10.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 39.5%±10.1 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Aliaksandra Sasnovich's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 233 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 43% 58% / 66%
Body 24% 26% 51% / 57%
T 36% 30% 69% / 68%

858 normal · 46 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 46% 65% / 66%
Body 26% 24% 55% / 56%
T 24% 30% 59% / 64%

654 normal · 187 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
Wide39% 51.6%±4.2 n=357 40%
Body24% 49.1%±5.2 n=220 9% ▼
T36% 55.7%±4.3 n=327 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 53.8%±3.9 n=414 49%
Body26% 50.4%±5.2 n=216 11% ▼
T25% 52.5%±5.3 n=211 40% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.61).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.70 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: −1.4±4.0 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. (595 repeats, 1,096 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 133 39% −5.1±6.3
1stAd courtT 248 41% +5.4±4.9
1stAd courtWide 161 26% −8.6±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 142 41% −1.5±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 228 32% −0.5±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 218 33% −0.9±4.9
2ndAd courtBody 144 52% −3.0±6.2
2ndAd courtT 84 51% −3.7±7.7
2ndAd courtWide 92 53% −0.2±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 165 57% +2.6±5.8
2ndDeuce courtT 90 52% −3.7±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 98 57% +3.4±7.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 57% · +1.3±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 56% · −0.4±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 54% · −1.7±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 51% · −4.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 50% · −5.5±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.3% · won 59% · +16.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 55% · +12.3±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 52% · +8.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 51% · +8.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 51% · +8.2±9.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 55% · +6.4±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 53% · +4.9±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 3.6% · won 54% · +5.3±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 54% · +5.7±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 55% · +6.4±11.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 53% · +7.6±10.9 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 56% · +10.0±12.6 vs own baseline · +18.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Body serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 54% · +7.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +17.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 54% · +7.8±13.0 vs own baseline · +24.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 51% · +4.9±10.8 vs own baseline · +11.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 49% · +3.4±9.4 vs own baseline · +2.7 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

FH to their forehand · return +1+1.2146
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.7414
FH to their forehand · return+0.3170
FH to their backhand · rally+0.3325
FH to the middle · rally+0.2195

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−3.9145
FH to their forehand · return−2.0192
FH to the middle · serve +1−1.9167
FH to their backhand · rally−1.9247
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.3383

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.78, Caroline Wozniacki +2.32, Angelique Kerber +2.13, Daria Kasatkina +1.85, Maja Chwalinska +1.80

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.63, Angelique Kerber +0.26, Elina Avanesyan +0.12, Marie Bouzkova +0.05, Katie Volynets −0.18

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.

Unforced errors / shot14.7%
Drop shots / shot3.0%
Point-ending shots31.2%
Wide serves · ad49%
BH down the line25%
Deep returns36%
Forehand share55%
1st serve in64%
FH down the line29%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce36%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Points at net6%
Chipped returns7%
Backhand slice10%
Through the middle27%
Run-around forehands3%
Avg rally length3.5
T serves · ad25%

Plays most like

  1. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  2. Johanna Konta 2013–2020 plan v
  3. Aryna Sabalenka 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  5. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Petra Kvitova 2010–2025 plan v
  7. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v
  8. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010

Charted matches