WTA · Right-handed · 4 charted matches · 1994–2000
Amanda Coetzer
Shot expected value
The share of points Amanda Coetzer 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 · 106 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 33% | 33.9%±10.5 | 43.3% |
| BH crosscourt | 33% | 48.2%±11.1 | 47.6% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 12% | 42.7%±14.2 | 40.4% |
| BH down the line | 10% | 43.1%±14.6 | 46.8% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 83 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 43% | 47.1%±11.0 | 46.7% |
| FH through the middle | 29% | 41.5%±12.2 | 41.3% |
| FH down the line | 28% | 34.8%±12.0 | 44.9% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 73 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 41% | 48.8%±11.6 | 47.0% |
| FH through the middle | 27% | 43.2%±12.9 | 41.5% |
| FH down the line | 25% | 37.6%±12.9 | 46.4% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 64 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 36% | 33.9%±11.9 | 47.9% |
| BH through the middle | 23% | 41.5%±13.7 | 42.7% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 20% | 38.6%±13.9 | 38.7% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index −15 How much less varied Amanda Coetzer's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 41 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 31% ▼ | 61% / 66% |
| Body | 39% | 23% ▼ | 51% / 57% |
| T | 22% | 46% ▲ | 55% / 68% |
87 normal · 13 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 33% | 39% | 52% / 66% |
| Body | 63% | 46% ▼ | 46% / 56% |
| T | 4% | 14% ▲ | 61% / 64% |
67 normal · 28 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 serve | Usage | Points won |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 38% | 47.9%±10.0 n=38 |
| Body | 37% | 42.7%±9.9 n=37 |
| T | 25% | 37.4%±10.7 n=25 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.23).
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 35% | 40.6%±10.2 n=33 |
| Body | 58% | 42.5%±8.8 n=55 |
| T | 7% | 38.6%±13.2 n=7 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.90).
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 6 | 48% | +3.8±13.7 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 15 | 35% | −0.7±11.7 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 52 | 32% | −2.3±8.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 24 | 40% | −2.3±11.0 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 25 | 32% | −0.1±10.4 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 29 | 38% | +3.6±10.4 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 7 | 55% | +0.4±13.4 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 3 | 53% | −2.0±14.3 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 16 | 46% | −7.8±12.1 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 17 | 54% | −0.5±12.0 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 6 | 55% | −1.0±13.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 9 | 46% | −7.3±13.1 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Amanda Coetzer's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Not enough data
Return
- Not enough data
Rally, consecutive own shots
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 16.2% · won 32% · −4.1±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 Amanda Coetzer wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 46% · +8.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Conchita Martinez (2/6), Mary Pierce (4/7)
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 34% · −4.1±12.4 vs own baseline · −15.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (0/7)
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 34% · −4.1±12.4 vs own baseline · −17.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (1/6), Conchita Martinez (2/8)
- BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 33% · −4.9±11.7 vs own baseline · −26.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (5/18)
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 backhand · rally | −1.4 | 133 |
Most exposed to
| FH to their forehand · rally | −1.0 | 156 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −0.3 | 139 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska