RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 23 charted matches · 2021–2026

Alycia Parks

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.0% ±3.1 raw 54.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,538 points
Return points won 43.5% ±3.1 raw 40.4% · tour 43.7% · 1,551 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 +0.10 ±0.08 better than 73% of WTA · raw +0.10
Shot selection +0.28 ±0.12 better than 76% of WTA · raw +0.28
Execution −3.50 ±0.79 better than 0% of WTA · raw −3.48
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 22 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.57 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 55% 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 6,547 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alycia Parks 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 · 277 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 56.2%±8.6 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 51.8%±9.1 52.2%
BH through the middle 14% 36.0%±10.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 14% 39.9%±10.6 45.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 35.4%±10.4 50.9%
BH down the line 11% 45.1%±11.5 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 236 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 37% 35.7%±7.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 30.1%±7.9 43.3%
BH down the line 14% 39.1%±11.1 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 41.3%±13.5 34.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 26.7%±12.3 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 48.7%±14.3 40.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 234 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 47.4%±9.2 52.3%
FH down the line 24% 55.3%±9.3 53.0%
BH through the middle 16% 46.0%±10.9 46.2%
BH down the line 15% 39.1%±10.9 50.6%
FH through the middle 13% 42.6%±11.5 46.5%
BH crosscourt 7% 41.0%±13.3 50.8%

Serve +1: deep return to your middle

position worth 45% to the average player · 204 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 43.2%±9.2 45.6%
BH through the middle 18% 39.6%±10.7 42.8%
FH through the middle 18% 41.2%±10.7 42.5%
FH crosscourt 16% 48.5%±11.3 48.6%
BH down the line 10% 31.7%±12.0 40.0%
BH crosscourt 8% 38.9%±13.2 46.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Alycia Parks's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 197 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 50% 69% / 66%
Body 14% 20% 54% / 57%
T 34% 30% 67% / 68%

752 normal · 50 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 44% 71% / 66%
Body 16% 14% 56% / 56%
T 45% 41% 65% / 64%

584 normal · 147 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
Wide52% 56.2%±3.9 n=414 67% ▲
Body15% 46.5%±6.7 n=119 0% ▼
T34% 54.5%±4.7 n=269 33%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.06).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide40% 56.6%±4.5 n=293 55% ▲
Body16% 50.7%±6.8 n=115 1% ▼
T44% 53.8%±4.4 n=323 44%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.40).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.71 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: −7.1±3.6 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. (467 repeats, 1,020 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 120 39% −5.1±6.5
1stAd courtT 156 32% −4.0±5.6
1stAd courtWide 207 34% −0.1±5.1
1stDeuce courtBody 150 39% −3.8±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 153 35% +2.6±5.8
1stDeuce courtWide 221 29% −4.9±4.7
2ndAd courtBody 112 45% −9.6±6.9
2ndAd courtT 35 55% −0.4±10.2
2ndAd courtWide 112 60% +6.4±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 126 53% −1.7±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 70 56% −0.2±8.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 86 52% −1.9±7.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 57% · −4.7±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 56% · −6.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 7.3% · won 58% · −3.7±7.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 55% · −6.6±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.5% · won 51% · −10.9±10.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.9% · won 52% · +12.5±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 52% · +12.6±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.0% · won 52% · +12.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.6% · won 48% · +7.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.2% · won 50% · +10.1±11.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.7% · won 51% · +8.5±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 49% · +6.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 47% · +4.4±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.9% · won 47% · +4.0±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 46% · +3.1±11.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 54% · +11.6±13.0 vs own baseline · +19.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 51% · +9.0±12.4 vs own baseline · +9.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 44% · +1.9±12.6 vs own baseline · −0.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 43% · +0.5±12.7 vs own baseline · −4.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 42% · −0.9±12.8 vs own baseline · −5.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 41% · −1.5±12.4 vs own baseline · −5.6 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 1st serve · deuce court+1.6269
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.3293
T 1st serve · ad court+1.2323
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.0414
BH to their backhand · return−0.4170

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · rally−1.0139
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.7144
BH to the middle · serve +1−0.7154
FH to the middle · return−0.6326
BH to the middle · rally−0.6148

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.87, Caroline Wozniacki +1.37, Tatjana Maria +0.96, Daria Kasatkina +0.84, Angelique Kerber +0.76

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani −1.11, Angelique Kerber −1.51, Elina Avanesyan −1.67, Marie Bouzkova −1.88, Katie Volynets −2.07

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Caroline Wozniacki, Linda Fruhvirtova, Daria Kasatkina, Magdalena Frech

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot20.8%
Point-ending shots41.3%
Wide serves · deuce52%
FH down the line36%
BH down the line26%
T serves · ad44%
Deep returns36%
Drop shots / shot2.1%
Points at net8%
Backhand slice15%
Forehand share53%
Wide serves · ad40%
Serve & volley0%
Run-around forehands6%
Chipped returns7%
T serves · deuce34%
Through the middle24%
1st serve in57%
Avg rally length2.9

Plays most like

  1. Julia Goerges 2009–2020 plan v
  2. Talia Gibson 2024–2026 plan v
  3. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  4. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v
  5. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Petra Kvitova 2010–2025 plan v
  7. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v
  8. Dayana Yastremska 2013–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches