RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 2015–2022

Alison Van Uytvanck

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.2% ±3.6 raw 57.9% · tour 56.3% · 743 points
Return points won 42.3% ±3.6 raw 37.1% · tour 43.7% · 760 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 −0.17 ±0.13 better than 22% of WTA · raw −0.19
Shot selection −0.40 ±0.14 better than 17% of WTA · raw −0.44
Execution −0.18 ±0.59 better than 52% of WTA · raw −0.46
Tactical adaptability −0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.17 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 5% 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 3,381 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alison Van Uytvanck 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 · 197 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 37.3%±8.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 30.8%±9.1 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 40.3%±10.7 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 10% 35.5%±12.6 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 156 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 33% 44.6%±9.7 43.3%
BH crosscourt 23% 47.4%±11.0 47.6%
BH down the line 15% 52.0%±12.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 14% 30.7%±11.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 44.4%±14.0 40.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 34.5%±14.3 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 151 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 27% 49.4%±10.5 45.8%
FH crosscourt 23% 51.9%±11.1 52.7%
BH through the middle 19% 44.3%±11.8 46.2%
FH down the line 13% 51.1%±13.0 52.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 109 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 39% 42.3%±10.3 46.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 48.7%±12.7 52.3%
FH through the middle 17% 48.2%±13.3 46.5%
FH down the line 9% 42.0%±14.8 53.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Alison Van Uytvanck's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 83 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 46% 67% / 66%
Body 19% 33% ▲ 56% / 57%
T 37% 21% ▼ 67% / 68%

364 normal · 24 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 49% ▲ 71% / 66%
Body 8% 5% 51% / 56%
T 54% 46% ▼ 68% / 64%

292 normal · 59 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
Wide44% 61.4%±5.7 n=169 59% ▲
Body20% 51.4%±7.9 n=78 5% ▼
T36% 58.2%±6.2 n=141 36%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.13).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide40% 61.6%±6.1 n=141 55% ▲
Body7% 47.8%±11.1 n=25 0% ▼
T53% 57.4%±5.5 n=185 45% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.043): serve wide more. Gap 3.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.74 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: +3.3±7.1 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. (230 repeats, 489 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 25 42% −1.8±11.0
1stAd courtT 98 30% −5.3±6.7
1stAd courtWide 89 27% −7.3±6.7
1stDeuce courtBody 49 40% −2.4±9.1
1stDeuce courtT 80 30% −2.5±7.2
1stDeuce courtWide 115 30% −3.5±6.3
2ndAd courtBody 65 48% −7.1±8.4
2ndAd courtT 26 58% +3.0±10.8
2ndAd courtWide 60 45% −9.0±8.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 72 51% −3.1±8.1
2ndDeuce courtT 40 58% +2.3±9.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 37 49% −4.3±10.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 63% · −2.6±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 4.8% · won 59% · −6.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 6.1% · won 54% · −11.4±11.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.0% · won 45% · +5.8±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 10.1% · won 37% · −1.2±10.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.3% · won 45% · +1.9±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 7.9% · won 44% · +0.7±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 5.7% · won 43% · −0.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 5.7% · won 43% · −0.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 42% · −1.6±11.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Alison Van Uytvanck 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 through the middle used 1.2% · won 42% · −2.0±12.4 vs own baseline · −5.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ekaterina Alexandrova (4/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 42% · −1.9±11.5 vs own baseline · −8.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Cristina Bucsa (2/7)
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 38% · −5.8±12.4 vs own baseline · −17.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (2/6)
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 38% · −5.6±11.7 vs own baseline · −12.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (2/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.2% · won 37% · −6.7±12.2 vs own baseline · −15.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ekaterina Alexandrova (3/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 36% · −7.9±11.2 vs own baseline · −19.7 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

Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.5124
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.9124
FH to the middle · rally+0.4123
T 1st serve · ad court+0.2164
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.2156

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−1.4168
FH to their backhand · rally−1.1137
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.8126
T 1st serve · ad court−0.2141
BH to their backhand · rally+0.2141

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle38%
T serves · ad53%
Chipped returns24%
Points at net11%
Drop shots / shot2.4%
Backhand slice26%
Forehand share55%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce36%
Wide serves · ad40%
Point-ending shots23.5%
Deep returns32%
1st serve in61%
BH down the line19%
Avg rally length4.0
Unforced errors / shot9.8%
FH down the line27%
Run-around forehands3%

Plays most like

  1. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Kiki Bertens 2012–2021 plan v
  6. R – plan v
  7. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  8. Ajla Tomljanovic 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches