RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 31 charted matches · 2013–2024

Alize Cornet

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.6% ±2.9 raw 53.2% · tour 56.3% · 2,146 points
Return points won 46.0% ±2.9 raw 44.2% · tour 43.7% · 2,032 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 −0.29 ±0.10 better than 9% of WTA · raw −0.28
Shot selection −0.28 ±0.15 better than 22% of WTA · raw −0.26
Execution +0.52 ±0.47 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.61
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 31 matches
Adaptation speed +0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.79 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 24% 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 12,854 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alize Cornet 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 · 945 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 46.3%±4.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 43.8%±4.6 43.3%
BH down the line 8% 53.5%±8.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 32.8%±8.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 40.8%±8.5 40.4%
BH lob crosscourt 1% 33.0%±13.7 32.8%
BH lob through the middle 1% 26.3%±12.8 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 826 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 21% 51.9%±5.9 46.2%
FH crosscourt 19% 54.6%±6.2 52.7%
FH down the line 18% 52.3%±6.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 15% 44.7%±6.7 45.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 49.0%±7.0 50.9%
BH down the line 5% 62.7%±10.4 50.0%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 50.7%±13.0 51.4%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 56.0%±14.7 66.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 646 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 45.7%±5.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 37.9%±5.7 41.3%
FH down the line 22% 47.5%±6.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 27.5%±9.1 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 23.5%±11.0 31.9%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 59.9%±14.3 50.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 518 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 45.9%±5.3 47.9%
BH through the middle 23% 53.0%±7.0 42.7%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 32.6%±8.5 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 11% 32.9%±8.9 33.4%
BH down the line 9% 49.0%±10.1 46.7%
BH slice down the line 2% 38.1%±14.3 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Alize Cornet's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 293 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 39% 62% / 66%
Body 28% 23% 57% / 57%
T 28% 38% ▲ 64% / 68%

1,040 normal · 69 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 29% 39% ▲ 67% / 66%
Body 35% 38% 60% / 56%
T 36% 22% ▼ 58% / 64%

811 normal · 224 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% 55.7%±3.6 n=483 59% ▲
Body28% 52.1%±4.5 n=310 13% ▼
T28% 51.9%±4.4 n=316 28%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide31% 52.8%±4.4 n=323 38% ▲
Body36% 53.3%±4.1 n=373 21% ▼
T33% 52.7%±4.3 n=339 41% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.98).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.51 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: −0.5±3.5 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. (575 repeats, 1,507 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 171 42% −1.5±5.7
1stAd courtT 228 39% +3.1±5.0
1stAd courtWide 229 39% +4.3±5.0
1stDeuce courtBody 205 45% +2.4±5.3
1stDeuce courtT 191 35% +2.5±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 292 36% +2.4±4.4
2ndAd courtBody 177 51% −3.6±5.7
2ndAd courtT 48 53% −1.8±9.3
2ndAd courtWide 115 52% −1.1±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 206 52% −2.2±5.3
2ndDeuce courtT 102 57% +0.7±7.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 62 60% +6.2±8.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 63% · +5.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 62% · +3.9±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · ±0.0±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.5% · won 56% · −2.3±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 3.3% · won 51% · −7.2±8.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 60% · +14.0±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 59% · +13.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 56% · +9.6±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 55% · +8.5±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.4% · won 52% · +6.4±8.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 60% · +12.0±8.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.0% · won 57% · +9.8±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 55% · +7.4±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 53% · +5.1±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 55% · +6.9±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 57% · +9.6±9.1 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Monica Niculescu (4/7), Maria Sharapova (4/6)
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 60% · +12.1±10.9 vs own baseline · +20.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.6% · won 56% · +8.1±10.0 vs own baseline · +15.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 56% · +8.5±10.4 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.8±12.1 vs own baseline · +17.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.8% · won 54% · +5.9±9.3 vs own baseline · +11.0 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+3.9273
FH to the middle · return+2.6407
BH to their backhand · rally+2.3963
FH to their backhand · return+2.0230
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.6264

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.1262
FH to their backhand · rally−2.7554
BH to their backhand · return−2.2229
FH to their backhand · return−1.9171
BH to the middle · serve +1−1.4298

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.39, Caroline Wozniacki +3.07, Daria Kasatkina +2.54, Angelique Kerber +2.47, Sara Errani +2.45

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.83, Marie Bouzkova +2.67, Angelique Kerber +2.54, Elina Avanesyan +2.18, Linda Fruhvirtova +2.18

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length5.1
Through the middle34%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
FH down the line31%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Points at net8%
Chipped returns13%
Deep returns34%
1st serve in62%
Backhand slice14%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · ad33%
Run-around forehands4%
Wide serves · ad31%
T serves · deuce28%
Forehand share49%
BH down the line14%
Unforced errors / shot7.2%
Point-ending shots16.3%

Plays most like

  1. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Agnieszka Radwanska 2007–2018 plan v
  4. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  5. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  6. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v
  8. Saisai Zheng 2014–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Martina Hingis 1996–2007
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches