RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 28 charted matches · 1999–2009

Amelie Mauresmo

Archetype: Chip returner · Slice-heavy

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.6% ±2.7 raw 57.8% · tour 56.3% · 2,143 points
Return points won 45.1% ±2.9 raw 42.1% · tour 43.7% · 2,140 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 +0.31 ±0.13 better than 95% of WTA · raw +0.30
Shot selection −0.31 ±0.21 better than 21% of WTA · raw −0.33
Execution +0.61 ±0.36 better than 82% of WTA · raw +0.43
Tactical adaptability −0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 27 matches
Adaptation speed −0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.65 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 43% 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 11,510 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Amelie Mauresmo 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 · 817 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 50.9%±5.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 47.0%±6.5 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 15% 48.0%±6.8 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 15% 37.6%±6.8 34.4%
BH down the line 14% 48.0%±7.2 46.8%
BH slice down the line 6% 35.9%±9.8 31.7%
FH inside-out 2% 47.0%±14.3 52.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 707 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 50.4%±4.7 46.7%
FH down the line 35% 42.2%±5.0 44.9%
FH through the middle 19% 49.5%±6.7 41.3%
FH down the line + approach 4% 62.2%±11.3 65.4%
FH slice through the middle 1% 26.2%±13.2 29.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 527 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 29% 47.7%±6.2 47.9%
BH slice crosscourt 24% 47.4%±6.8 38.7%
BH through the middle 17% 50.0%±8.0 42.7%
BH slice through the middle 15% 50.7%±8.3 33.4%
BH down the line 11% 49.8%±9.4 46.7%
BH slice down the line 5% 46.2%±12.2 34.0%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 473 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 50.0%±6.9 52.2%
FH crosscourt 23% 54.6%±7.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 13% 47.7%±9.2 45.8%
BH through the middle 10% 45.0%±10.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 7% 54.0%±11.2 50.9%
BH slice through the middle 5% 42.8%±12.6 44.8%
BH down the line 5% 45.2%±12.6 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 4% 63.4%±12.7 68.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Amelie Mauresmo's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 208 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 54% 66% / 66%
Body 9% 15% 61% / 57%
T 35% 31% 73% / 68%

1,026 normal · 54 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 50% 64% / 66%
Body 7% 7% 51% / 56%
T 48% 43% 65% / 64%

842 normal · 154 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
Wide56% 58.0%±3.2 n=601 58% ▲
Body10% 58.2%±7.0 n=105 0% ▼
T35% 59.2%±4.0 n=374 42% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.92).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 58.3%±3.7 n=459 61% ▲
Body7% 54.0%±8.2 n=69 0% ▼
T47% 56.4%±3.7 n=468 39% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.58).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.39 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: −2.3±3.7 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. (768 repeats, 1,252 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 85 31% −12.4±7.1
1stAd courtT 257 38% +2.0±4.7
1stAd courtWide 255 35% ±0.0±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 99 42% −0.1±7.2
1stDeuce courtT 235 32% +0.2±4.7
1stDeuce courtWide 369 35% +0.6±3.9
2ndAd courtBody 106 53% −2.5±7.0
2ndAd courtT 106 59% +4.2±6.9
2ndAd courtWide 181 52% −1.8±5.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 144 50% −4.8±6.2
2ndDeuce courtT 94 57% +1.1±7.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 138 51% −2.5±6.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.5% · won 70% · +6.4±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 62% · −2.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 61% · −2.6±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 59% · −4.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 59% · −4.5±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 56% · +14.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 4.0% · won 50% · +7.5±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 49% · +6.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 48% · +6.0±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.7% · won 45% · +2.6±8.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 63% · +13.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 1.1% · won 62% · +12.5±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 54% · +4.9±6.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 55% · +6.2±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 54% · +4.9±8.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.5% · won 63% · +13.9±10.9 vs own baseline · +7.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 54% · +5.7±6.9 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sharapova (3/10), Anastasia Myskina (8/19)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.1% · won 56% · +7.4±8.9 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anastasia Myskina (2/7), Elena Dementieva (4/8)
  4. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +10.1±11.1 vs own baseline · +10.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anastasia Myskina (4/7)
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +7.5±10.6 vs own baseline · +13.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sharapova (3/6), Anastasia Myskina (6/7)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +6.4±10.4 vs own baseline · +19.6 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

FH to their backhand · serve +1+4.1352
Body 2nd serve · ad court+3.4138
BH slice to their backhand · return+3.1176
BH to their backhand · rally+2.8522
FH to their backhand · return+2.5239

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return +1−3.3127
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.7255
BH to the middle · return +1−2.2135
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−2.1138
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.0246

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Victoria Azarenka, Iga Swiatek, Caroline Wozniacki, Leylah Fernandez, Jessica Pegula

Tactical fingerprint

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

Chipped returns42%
FH down the line41%
Points at net16%
Wide serves · deuce56%
Serve & volley11%
Backhand slice37%
T serves · ad47%
Avg rally length4.5
Wide serves · ad46%
BH down the line21%
T serves · deuce35%
1st serve in60%
Forehand share52%
Run-around forehands3%
Deep returns29%
Point-ending shots20.3%
Unforced errors / shot8.7%
Drop shots / shot0.2%
Through the middle22%

Plays most like

  1. Francesca Schiavone 2006–2017 plan v
  2. Svetlana Kuznetsova 2004–2021 plan v
  3. Magdalena Rybarikova 2013–2019 plan v
  4. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Saisai Zheng 2014–2020 plan v
  7. Kim Clijsters 2001–2021 plan v
  8. Christina Mchale 2012–2021 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elise Mertens 2018–2026
  2. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026
  3. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026

Charted matches