RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2002–2006

Anastasia Myskina

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.6% ±3.4 raw 52.1% · tour 56.3% · 1,022 points
Return points won 45.4% ±3.4 raw 41.6% · tour 43.7% · 1,016 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 +0.17 ±0.16 better than 82% of WTA · raw +0.15
Shot selection +0.02 ±0.17 better than 47% of WTA · raw −0.02
Execution −0.24 ±0.72 better than 46% of WTA · raw −0.52
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.43 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 71% 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 5,700 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anastasia Myskina 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 · 350 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 45.2%±6.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 36.6%±7.2 43.3%
BH down the line 21% 46.7%±8.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 36.8%±13.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 334 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 44.9%±5.8 46.7%
FH down the line 25% 39.8%±7.9 44.9%
FH through the middle 21% 44.7%±8.6 41.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 263 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 57.0%±8.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 51.7%±10.0 45.8%
FH down the line 17% 55.4%±10.2 52.2%
BH through the middle 14% 45.1%±10.9 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 50.3%±11.2 50.9%
BH down the line 10% 59.6%±11.8 50.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 212 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 43.3%±7.5 47.9%
BH through the middle 29% 50.7%±9.1 42.7%
BH down the line 21% 41.2%±10.1 46.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +4 How much less varied Anastasia Myskina's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 118 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 58% 59% / 66%
Body 12% 12% 51% / 57%
T 34% 30% 70% / 68%

492 normal · 33 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 28% 56% / 66%
Body 22% 16% 60% / 56%
T 51% 55% 55% / 64%

400 normal · 85 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
Wide55% 55.2%±4.6 n=287 51% ▼
Body12% 48.5%±8.6 n=62 0% ▼
T34% 56.1%±5.7 n=176 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.30).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide27% 47.7%±6.4 n=133 27%
Body21% 58.1%±7.1 n=100 36% ▲
T52% 46.1%±4.9 n=252 37% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.022): serve body more. Gap 9.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.52 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: +2.2±5.5 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. (390 repeats, 592 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 34 44% +0.1±10.2
1stAd courtT 187 32% −3.4±5.2
1stAd courtWide 84 36% +1.8±7.4
1stDeuce courtBody 34 39% −3.9±10.0
1stDeuce courtT 97 34% +2.2±6.9
1stDeuce courtWide 209 36% +1.6±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 48 46% −9.5±9.3
2ndAd courtT 56 60% +4.9±8.7
2ndAd courtWide 75 58% +4.6±7.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 77 53% −1.8±7.9
2ndDeuce courtT 37 53% −2.6±10.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 75 51% −3.2±8.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 3.0% · won 56% · +1.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 54% · −0.5±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 54% · −1.0±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 54% · −1.2±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.8% · won 52% · −2.4±10.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 5.5% · won 52% · +9.2±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.9% · won 50% · +6.9±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.9% · won 50% · +6.9±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.4% · won 50% · +6.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 50% · +6.8±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 53% · +6.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 53% · +6.0±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 2.8% · won 52% · +4.7±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.4% · won 50% · +2.7±7.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.9% · won 51% · +3.9±10.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Anastasia Myskina 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 3.3% · won 51% · +6.1±7.3 vs own baseline · +4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tzipi Obziler (3/8), Maria Sharapova (15/29)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 54% · +8.2±9.2 vs own baseline · +7.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Amelie Mauresmo (13/25), Justine Henin (8/13)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 56% · +10.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +11.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Amelie Mauresmo (4/6), Maria Sharapova (7/11)
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.5±12.3 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Amelie Mauresmo (2/6), Justine Henin (8/11)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH down the line used 0.9% · won 51% · +5.3±11.6 vs own baseline · +9.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Justine Henin (5/11), Amelie Mauresmo (4/8)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 51% · +5.4±12.4 vs own baseline · +2.6 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 the middle · rally+1.2197
BH to the middle · rally+0.7250
FH to their forehand · return+0.5144
FH to their forehand · return +1±0.0139
FH to their backhand · rally−0.3237

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.1173
FH to the middle · return−2.3185
FH to their backhand · return−1.5137
FH to the middle · rally−1.3178
BH to their backhand · serve +1−1.3125

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Barbora Krejcikova, Shelby Rogers, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Jil Teichmann, Maria Sakkari

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce55%
T serves · ad52%
BH down the line25%
Avg rally length4.5
Unforced errors / shot10.4%
Serve & volley0%
Chipped returns7%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Points at net5%
T serves · deuce34%
FH down the line27%
Point-ending shots20.7%
Through the middle26%
Backhand slice4%
Run-around forehands1%
1st serve in58%
Forehand share49%
Wide serves · ad27%
Deep returns24%

Plays most like

  1. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013 plan v
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002 plan v
  3. Kim Clijsters 2001–2021 plan v
  4. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  6. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Louisa Chirico 2015–2017 plan v
  8. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026
  2. Elise Mertens 2018–2026
  3. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026

Charted matches