RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2014–2022

Ana Konjuh

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.4% ±3.4 raw 56.1% · tour 56.3% · 652 points
Return points won 42.0% ±3.3 raw 40.7% · tour 43.7% · 702 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 +0.09 ±0.13 better than 71% of WTA · raw +0.11
Shot selection −0.23 ±0.24 better than 26% of WTA · raw −0.18
Execution −1.90 ±0.91 better than 5% of WTA · raw −1.54
Points left on the table 2.35 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 80% 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 3,229 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ana Konjuh 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 · 149 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 24% 43.2%±10.9 50.9%
FH crosscourt 23% 47.3%±11.2 52.7%
BH through the middle 18% 34.6%±11.4 46.2%
FH through the middle 13% 42.9%±12.9 45.8%
FH down the line 13% 49.9%±13.2 52.2%
BH down the line 9% 48.5%±14.3 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 140 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 44.1%±8.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 43.6%±11.3 43.3%
BH down the line 16% 34.2%±12.0 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 45.4%±14.7 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.6%±13.7 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 129 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 37.5%±8.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 22% 31.8%±11.1 41.3%
FH down the line 18% 37.2%±12.1 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 9% 27.6%±13.0 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 125 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 26% 50.3%±11.4 50.8%
BH through the middle 23% 35.2%±11.2 46.2%
FH crosscourt 16% 53.7%±13.0 52.3%
FH down the line 16% 46.5%±13.0 53.0%
BH down the line 10% 56.6%±14.4 50.6%
FH through the middle 10% 41.6%±14.3 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Ana Konjuh's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 80 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 22% ▼ 74% / 66%
Body 20% 11% ▼ 56% / 57%
T 43% 67% ▲ 77% / 68%

315 normal · 18 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 26% 31% 59% / 66%
Body 26% 18% ▼ 56% / 56%
T 48% 52% 60% / 64%

257 normal · 62 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
Wide37% 61.6%±6.5 n=122 52% ▲
Body19% 56.7%±8.4 n=64 4% ▼
T44% 59.1%±6.1 n=147 44%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.66).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide27% 52.1%±7.7 n=85 36% ▲
Body24% 49.5%±7.9 n=78 9% ▼
T49% 54.9%±6.0 n=156 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.56).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.67 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: +1.5±7.5 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. (189 repeats, 445 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 78 44% −0.2±7.9
1stAd courtT 88 39% +3.2±7.4
1stAd courtWide 70 28% −6.1±7.4
1stDeuce courtBody 74 36% −6.3±7.8
1stDeuce courtT 67 25% −6.7±7.3
1stDeuce courtWide 98 33% −1.0±6.8
2ndAd courtBody 58 60% +4.6±8.6
2ndAd courtT 20 59% +4.0±11.4
2ndAd courtWide 20 52% −1.4±11.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 75 56% +1.1±8.0
2ndDeuce courtT 25 54% −1.8±11.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 28 50% −3.5±10.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 54% · −8.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 53% · −9.6±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 7.4% · won 47% · −1.2±11.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 10.5% · won 38% · +4.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 10.1% · won 37% · +3.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 11.2% · won 37% · +3.0±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.9% · won 36% · +1.7±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 Ana Konjuh 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 crosscourt used 1.2% · won 42% · −0.7±12.6 vs own baseline · −7.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 41% · −1.6±12.4 vs own baseline · −12.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Monica Niculescu (3/9)

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 · deuce court+0.5122
BH to the middle · return−0.2169
BH to their backhand · rally−0.2143
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.6147
T 1st serve · ad court−1.0156

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−0.5121
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−0.5151
T 1st serve · ad court+0.1121
BH to the middle · return+0.3150

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot16.8%
Point-ending shots34.0%
T serves · ad49%
Deep returns38%
T serves · deuce44%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
Points at net9%
Chipped returns12%
FH down the line29%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice10%
1st serve in61%
Through the middle26%
Wide serves · deuce37%
Forehand share51%
Run-around forehands1%
Avg rally length3.6
Wide serves · ad27%

Plays most like

  1. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  2. Ashlyn Krueger 2023–2026 plan v
  3. Elena Gabriela Ruse 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  5. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Clara Tauson 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Caroline Garcia 2013–2025 plan v
  8. Talia Gibson 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches