RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2011–2025

Anastasija Sevastova

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.6% ±3.1 raw 54.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,115 points
Return points won 44.9% ±3.1 raw 41.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,108 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 +0.24 ±0.10 better than 90% of WTA · raw +0.22
Shot selection −0.25 ±0.17 better than 25% of WTA · raw −0.28
Execution +0.04 ±0.48 better than 63% of WTA · raw −0.15
Tactical adaptability −0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.23 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 91% 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 5,983 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anastasija Sevastova 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 · 405 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 45.3%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 52.3%±7.6 43.3%
BH down the line 7% 54.7%±11.6 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 40.2%±11.4 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 7% 34.5%±11.2 34.4%
BH drop shot crosscourt 4% 41.4%±13.7 47.5%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 43.2%±14.4 49.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 387 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 41.7%±7.6 52.7%
BH crosscourt 19% 49.1%±8.5 50.9%
FH down the line 18% 48.8%±8.7 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 44.3%±8.9 46.2%
FH through the middle 12% 47.2%±10.1 45.8%
BH down the line 7% 50.0%±11.9 50.0%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 51.3%±14.5 47.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 276 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 43.8%±6.5 46.7%
FH through the middle 20% 35.5%±9.1 41.3%
FH down the line 17% 41.8%±9.9 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 10% 29.5%±10.9 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 26.2%±12.8 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 213 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 50.5%±7.7 47.8%
BH through the middle 23% 36.2%±9.6 43.0%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 37.3%±11.5 39.6%
BH down the line 9% 48.1%±13.0 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 8% 31.5%±12.6 33.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Anastasija Sevastova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 135 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 42% 66% / 66%
Body 15% 12% 60% / 57%
T 38% 45% 68% / 68%

544 normal · 33 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 49% 58% / 66%
Body 24% 19% 52% / 56%
T 31% 32% 61% / 64%

431 normal · 102 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
Wide46% 55.9%±4.7 n=268 46%
Body15% 55.2%±7.6 n=85 0% ▼
T39% 60.1%±5.1 n=224 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 52.6%±5.0 n=244 46%
Body23% 49.1%±6.6 n=123 8% ▼
T31% 53.9%±5.9 n=166 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.57).
Optimal mix: +0.8 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: −3.9±4.1 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. (379 repeats, 701 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 71 41% −3.1±8.0
1stAd courtT 137 35% −0.4±6.1
1stAd courtWide 124 28% −6.3±6.0
1stDeuce courtBody 82 42% −0.8±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 163 30% −2.3±5.4
1stDeuce courtWide 122 32% −2.3±6.2
2ndAd courtBody 87 56% +1.0±7.5
2ndAd courtT 27 57% +2.0±10.8
2ndAd courtWide 80 55% +1.1±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 104 57% +2.5±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 72 52% −4.2±8.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 36 52% −2.1±10.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 60% · +1.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 58% · +0.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 58% · +0.6±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 58% · ±0.0±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 4.7% · won 56% · −1.8±9.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.7% · won 53% · +6.0±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.3% · won 51% · +4.2±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 50% · +3.2±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.3% · won 49% · +2.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.3% · won 49% · +2.3±10.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 5.7% · won 57% · +9.6±8.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.5% · won 53% · +5.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 53% · +5.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 52% · +4.3±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 51% · +3.6±9.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Anastasija Sevastova 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 through the middle used 1.3% · won 56% · +10.5±10.3 vs own baseline · +19.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (4/6), Paula Badosa (8/9)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 54% · +8.2±11.7 vs own baseline · +8.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 55% · +8.9±12.8 vs own baseline · +15.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 51% · +4.8±9.4 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Naomi Osaka (3/7), Paula Badosa (8/14)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.3±12.3 vs own baseline · +8.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 51% · +5.3±12.7 vs own baseline · +9.9 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 · rally+3.9201
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.7122
BH to the middle · return+1.3253
FH to the middle · return+1.1171
BH to their backhand · serve +1+0.6161

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−2.3235
FH to their forehand · rally−2.2327
BH to their forehand · rally−1.9150
T 1st serve · ad court−1.3203
FH to the middle · return−0.8240

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.21, Caroline Wozniacki +2.82, Angelique Kerber +2.42, Daria Kasatkina +2.30, Maja Chwalinska +2.15

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.71, Angelique Kerber +1.43, Marie Bouzkova +1.30, Elina Avanesyan +1.14, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.95

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot3.9%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Wide serves · ad46%
Avg rally length4.3
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
T serves · deuce39%
Chipped returns13%
Deep returns34%
Backhand slice17%
FH down the line29%
1st serve in62%
Serve & volley0%
Point-ending shots23.2%
Points at net6%
Through the middle27%
Run-around forehands5%
T serves · ad31%
BH down the line16%
Forehand share50%

Plays most like

  1. Su Wei Hsieh 2015–2024 plan v
  2. Petra Martic 2010–2024 plan v
  3. Kiki Bertens 2012–2021 plan v
  4. Anhelina Kalinina 2019–2025 plan v
  5. Linda Klimovicova 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Sofia Kenin 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Elena Vesnina 2007–2016 plan v
  8. Johanna Konta 2013–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches