RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 34 charted matches · 2017–2026

Anastasia Potapova

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.9% ±2.8 raw 54.7% · tour 56.3% · 2,363 points
Return points won 46.0% ±2.8 raw 42.2% · tour 43.7% · 2,273 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 +0.15 ±0.08 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.14
Shot selection −0.06 ±0.09 better than 40% of WTA · raw −0.08
Execution −0.14 ±0.50 better than 55% of WTA · raw −0.28
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 34 matches
Adaptation speed −0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.34 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 84% 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 12,363 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anastasia Potapova 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 · 753 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 55.9%±5.1 52.7%
FH down the line 16% 55.3%±6.9 52.2%
BH through the middle 15% 47.6%±7.1 46.2%
BH crosscourt 15% 58.3%±7.0 50.9%
FH through the middle 12% 44.9%±7.7 45.8%
BH down the line 10% 50.5%±8.4 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 699 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 44.0%±4.6 46.7%
FH down the line 24% 47.8%±6.0 44.9%
FH through the middle 22% 39.6%±6.1 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 4% 27.2%±10.2 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 29.8%±11.2 31.9%
FH lob through the middle 2% 27.8%±13.0 29.4%
FH slice down the line 2% 18.9%±11.6 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 694 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 50% 49.6%±4.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 43.7%±5.7 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 53.0%±7.8 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 33.1%±11.9 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 40.9%±14.3 40.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 409 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 49.5%±7.6 52.3%
BH crosscourt 23% 53.6%±7.7 50.8%
BH through the middle 18% 41.6%±8.5 46.2%
FH down the line 15% 47.0%±9.2 53.0%
FH through the middle 13% 47.6%±9.7 46.5%
BH down the line 8% 51.2%±11.3 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Anastasia Potapova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 290 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 41% 68% / 66%
Body 20% 10% ▼ 52% / 57%
T 31% 49% ▲ 63% / 68%

1,157 normal · 69 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 40% 67% / 66%
Body 16% 19% 61% / 56%
T 40% 41% 66% / 64%

913 normal · 221 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
Wide48% 55.8%±3.3 n=587 63% ▲
Body20% 50.8%±5.0 n=242 5% ▼
T32% 50.7%±4.0 n=397 32%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.14).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide43% 56.3%±3.6 n=483 56% ▲
Body17% 56.8%±5.5 n=191 2% ▼
T41% 56.7%±3.7 n=460 42% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.99).
Optimal mix: +0.2 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: −3.2±3.3 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. (762 repeats, 1,530 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 141 40% −3.4±6.2
1stAd courtT 298 36% +0.3±4.4
1stAd courtWide 248 35% +0.2±4.7
1stDeuce courtBody 138 40% −2.9±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 227 33% +0.4±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 339 35% +0.7±4.1
2ndAd courtBody 175 47% −8.4±5.7
2ndAd courtT 73 64% +8.6±7.8
2ndAd courtWide 155 46% −7.6±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 225 55% +1.0±5.1
2ndDeuce courtT 114 58% +2.2±6.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 137 53% −0.4±6.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 66% · +6.9±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 61% · +1.3±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 60% · +0.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 59% · ±0.0±7.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 58% · −1.8±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.0% · won 55% · +11.6±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 53% · +9.1±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 53% · +9.6±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 53% · +9.5±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 52% · +8.7±9.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 54% · +4.7±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 56% · +6.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 55% · +5.6±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 55% · +5.0±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 53% · +3.7±6.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 57% · +9.0±7.1 vs own baseline · +10.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (3/6), Elisabetta Cocciaretto (8/13)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 57% · +9.0±7.3 vs own baseline · +5.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elisabetta Cocciaretto (5/8), Mirra Andreeva (19/30)
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 64% · +16.1±10.5 vs own baseline · +20.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (3/8)
  4. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +11.2±10.5 vs own baseline · +17.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 55% · +6.4±8.7 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (8/14)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.3% · won 54% · +5.5±7.9 vs own baseline · +7.4 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

BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.7171
BH to their backhand · return +1+1.8273
FH to their forehand · return+1.6242
FH to the middle · return+1.2477
FH to the middle · return +1+1.1120

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return +1−3.5197
BH to their forehand · serve +1−3.1127
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.3249
FH to the middle · return−2.1456
BH to their forehand · return−1.7193

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.06, Caroline Wozniacki +2.91, Daria Kasatkina +2.32, Angelique Kerber +2.23, Sara Errani +2.13

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.83, Marie Bouzkova +1.41, Angelique Kerber +1.39, Elina Avanesyan +1.10, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.08

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Sara Errani, Jessica Pegula, Mirra Andreeva, Danielle Collins

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce48%
Deep returns35%
T serves · ad41%
Wide serves · ad43%
Unforced errors / shot11.0%
Avg rally length4.2
Point-ending shots24.2%
FH down the line29%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
Chipped returns8%
Forehand share53%
Through the middle27%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Run-around forehands4%
Backhand slice6%
T serves · deuce32%
Points at net4%
1st serve in59%

Plays most like

  1. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  4. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches