RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 38 charted matches · 2015–2023

Anett Kontaveit

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.0% ±2.7 raw 59.6% · tour 56.3% · 2,673 points
Return points won 45.8% ±2.8 raw 43.1% · tour 43.7% · 2,618 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 +0.16 ±0.07 better than 81% of WTA · raw +0.15
Shot selection +0.05 ±0.09 better than 51% of WTA · raw +0.03
Execution +0.27 ±0.43 better than 71% of WTA · raw +0.14
Tactical adaptability +0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 33 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.30 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 85% 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 12,414 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anett Kontaveit 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 · 678 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 48.5%±5.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 54.4%±6.7 45.8%
BH crosscourt 18% 56.9%±6.9 50.9%
BH through the middle 13% 49.8%±8.0 46.2%
FH down the line 12% 54.4%±8.2 52.2%
BH down the line 6% 48.4%±10.4 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 670 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 46% 49.0%±4.5 46.7%
FH down the line 20% 41.7%±6.5 44.9%
FH through the middle 20% 38.5%±6.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 8% 27.6%±8.7 29.2%
FH slice down the line 3% 18.1%±10.3 24.3%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 27.6%±12.6 31.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 595 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 45.0%±4.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 35.9%±6.3 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 54.2%±7.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.8%±10.6 34.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 30.4%±13.0 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 2% 29.5%±13.3 27.1%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 35.8%±14.2 40.4%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 426 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 53.9%±7.1 54.0%
BH crosscourt 23% 59.2%±7.4 52.5%
FH through the middle 17% 45.9%±8.5 45.5%
BH through the middle 14% 43.9%±9.2 46.3%
FH down the line 12% 49.5%±9.8 53.3%
BH down the line 7% 46.4%±11.6 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Anett Kontaveit's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 268 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 48% 67% / 66%
Body 13% 14% 57% / 57%
T 43% 38% 68% / 68%

1,332 normal · 73 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 46% 67% / 66%
Body 18% 17% 61% / 56%
T 36% 37% 66% / 64%

1,068 normal · 195 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
Wide43% 61.1%±3.2 n=611 59% ▲
Body13% 57.2%±5.5 n=188 0% ▼
T43% 58.1%±3.2 n=606 41% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 59.0%±3.3 n=588 47%
Body17% 58.2%±5.1 n=220 2% ▼
T36% 62.0%±3.6 n=455 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.44).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.74 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: −2.1±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. (933 repeats, 1,659 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 121 45% +1.3±6.7
1stAd courtT 292 38% +2.6±4.5
1stAd courtWide 342 35% +0.3±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 175 45% +2.2±5.7
1stDeuce courtT 341 30% −2.3±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 349 32% −1.8±3.9
2ndAd courtBody 231 56% +1.1±5.1
2ndAd courtT 81 64% +8.5±7.5
2ndAd courtWide 188 53% −0.3±5.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 248 58% +3.2±4.9
2ndDeuce courtT 178 52% −4.2±5.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 69 46% −8.2±8.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 63% · −0.2±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.4% · won 60% · −3.0±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 60% · −3.3±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 58% · −4.8±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 58% · −5.0±8.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 63% · +18.4±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.7% · won 53% · +9.0±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 51% · +6.6±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 52% · +7.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 50% · +6.0±8.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.6% · won 55% · +8.4±6.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 53% · +6.1±6.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 53% · +6.0±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 55% · +7.9±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 54% · +6.8±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 65% · +17.0±10.7 vs own baseline · +19.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 61% · +13.6±10.6 vs own baseline · +25.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (3/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +12.6±12.3 vs own baseline · +25.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 59% · +10.8±12.0 vs own baseline · +24.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +6.8±9.4 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elise Mertens (2/6), Maria Sakkari (3/6)
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 55% · +7.0±9.6 vs own baseline · +11.6 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

BH to their forehand · return+1.7244
BH to their backhand · return +1+1.6261
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.3127
FH to their forehand · return+1.2340
Body 2nd serve · ad court+1.2233

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−3.8157
Body 2nd serve · ad court−2.5223
FH to their backhand · rally−1.9461
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.9176
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.1195

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce43%
Point-ending shots28.0%
Unforced errors / shot12.3%
Wide serves · ad47%
Deep returns35%
Wide serves · deuce43%
1st serve in63%
Forehand share53%
Serve & volley0%
BH down the line20%
T serves · ad36%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Through the middle27%
Chipped returns6%
Backhand slice7%
Run-around forehands3%
Points at net4%
Avg rally length3.7
FH down the line25%

Plays most like

  1. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  2. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  3. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  4. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v
  6. Magda Linette 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches