RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2010–2022

Andrea Petkovic

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.6% ±3.2 raw 55.0% · tour 56.3% · 1,265 points
Return points won 44.0% ±3.2 raw 43.4% · tour 43.7% · 1,294 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 −0.18 ±0.14 better than 21% of WTA · raw −0.16
Shot selection +0.39 ±0.15 better than 89% of WTA · raw +0.43
Execution −0.77 ±0.60 better than 24% of WTA · raw −0.53
Tactical adaptability +0.18 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.70 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 35% 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 6,512 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Andrea Petkovic 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 · 391 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 56.1%±6.9 52.7%
BH through the middle 20% 43.7%±8.2 46.2%
FH through the middle 14% 46.9%±9.5 45.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 42.9%±9.4 50.9%
FH down the line 13% 51.3%±9.8 52.2%
BH down the line 6% 44.2%±12.5 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 351 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 44.9%±6.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 38% 45.2%±6.6 43.3%
BH down the line 7% 43.0%±12.1 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 38.4%±12.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 34.3%±11.8 40.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 271 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 49.9%±6.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 29% 35.0%±7.9 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 50.8%±10.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 31.0%±12.9 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 250 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 43.2%±8.3 52.3%
BH through the middle 18% 41.3%±10.0 46.2%
FH through the middle 18% 48.2%±10.2 46.5%
BH crosscourt 17% 55.1%±10.4 50.8%
FH down the line 10% 42.3%±12.3 53.0%
BH down the line 4% 52.0%±14.8 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Andrea Petkovic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 140 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 36% 66% / 66%
Body 27% 29% 58% / 57%
T 33% 36% 62% / 68%

622 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 39% 67% / 66%
Body 26% 22% 50% / 56%
T 39% 39% 60% / 64%

500 normal · 98 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
Wide39% 57.9%±4.8 n=260 54% ▲
Body28% 55.7%±5.6 n=183 12% ▼
T33% 54.7%±5.2 n=221 34%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.71).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide36% 57.5%±5.2 n=216 51% ▲
Body25% 47.0%±6.1 n=151 10% ▼
T39% 54.3%±5.1 n=231 39%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.048): serve wide more. Gap 3.9 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.64 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: −3.5±5.4 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. (346 repeats, 880 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 109 45% +1.6±6.9
1stAd courtT 169 38% +2.5±5.7
1stAd courtWide 121 31% −3.1±6.2
1stDeuce courtBody 125 39% −4.0±6.4
1stDeuce courtT 107 27% −5.4±6.2
1stDeuce courtWide 178 36% +2.1±5.5
2ndAd courtBody 108 57% +1.9±6.9
2ndAd courtT 41 47% −7.8±9.7
2ndAd courtWide 67 51% −3.0±8.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 133 58% +4.0±6.3
2ndDeuce courtT 75 62% +5.7±7.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 54 54% ±0.0±8.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.0% · won 64% · +5.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 4.2% · won 61% · +2.0±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 60% · +1.1±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · −2.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.0% · won 56% · −2.9±11.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.8% · won 57% · +11.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.1% · won 52% · +6.4±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 51% · +5.7±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.6% · won 49% · +3.9±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 48% · +2.7±9.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 52% · +6.7±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 51% · +5.7±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.5% · won 50% · +4.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.4% · won 50% · +4.7±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 49% · +3.4±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 56% · +10.5±9.7 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lesley Pattinama Kerkhove (5/7), Clara Burel (5/6)
  2. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +12.0±12.3 vs own baseline · +22.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 51% · +5.3±9.1 vs own baseline · +5.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sara Sorribes Tormo (3/7), Maria Sharapova (4/8)
  4. BH through the middle → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +8.9±12.8 vs own baseline · +23.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 52% · +5.9±11.3 vs own baseline · +8.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Venus Williams (2/6), Madison Brengle (3/7)
  6. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 54% · +7.8±13.0 vs own baseline · +20.6 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 · return+2.7301
BH to their backhand · return +1+1.5140
BH to the middle · return+1.3299
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.3221
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.4216

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.0180
BH to their backhand · return−3.0143
BH to the middle · return−2.4254
FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.3154
FH to their backhand · rally−2.2329

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.

Through the middle35%
1st serve in67%
Points at net10%
Deep returns34%
Unforced errors / shot10.8%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · ad39%
Avg rally length4.1
Forehand share53%
Point-ending shots23.4%
Run-around forehands6%
Backhand slice12%
Wide serves · deuce39%
T serves · deuce33%
Wide serves · ad36%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
Chipped returns2%
FH down the line24%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v
  3. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023 plan v
  5. Maya Joint 2024–2026 plan v
  6. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  7. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches