RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2019–2025

Anhelina Kalinina

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.3% ±3.0 raw 53.1% · tour 56.3% · 1,351 points
Return points won 46.0% ±3.1 raw 43.5% · tour 43.7% · 1,473 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 +0.24
Shot selection −0.03 ±0.17 better than 44% of WTA · raw −0.03
Execution +0.47 ±0.64 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.41
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed −0.18 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.11 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 98% 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 7,446 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anhelina Kalinina 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 · 437 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 50% 45.0%±5.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 49.3%±7.4 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 53.1%±9.4 46.8%
BH lob through the middle 3% 21.8%±11.7 27.1%
BH drop shot crosscourt 3% 50.0%±14.3 47.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 436 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 47.2%±5.5 46.7%
FH down the line 19% 47.6%±8.0 44.9%
FH through the middle 18% 38.0%±8.1 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 7% 40.9%±11.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 38.9%±13.2 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 374 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 54.9%±7.1 52.7%
BH crosscourt 21% 52.8%±8.3 50.9%
FH through the middle 13% 45.8%±9.9 45.8%
FH down the line 13% 55.1%±9.9 52.2%
BH through the middle 11% 46.4%±10.3 46.2%
BH down the line 7% 55.3%±11.9 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 240 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 55% 51.4%±6.7 47.8%
BH through the middle 27% 43.6%±8.9 43.0%
BH down the line 15% 48.7%±11.0 46.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Anhelina Kalinina's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 177 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 43% 61% / 66%
Body 27% 26% 55% / 57%
T 34% 31% 64% / 68%

656 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 50% 63% / 66%
Body 24% 26% 51% / 56%
T 26% 24% 62% / 64%

513 normal · 135 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% 49.9%±4.7 n=274 39%
Body27% 51.5%±5.6 n=187 12% ▼
T34% 57.9%±5.0 n=237 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.08).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide50% 55.3%±4.3 n=324 50%
Body25% 48.0%±6.0 n=159 9% ▼
T25% 54.6%±5.9 n=165 41% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.82 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: +2.3±5.1 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. (495 repeats, 813 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 108 49% +5.5±7.0
1stAd courtT 148 34% −2.0±5.8
1stAd courtWide 185 36% +1.5±5.4
1stDeuce courtBody 162 42% −1.1±5.9
1stDeuce courtT 142 38% +5.4±6.1
1stDeuce courtWide 201 36% +1.6±5.2
2ndAd courtBody 136 52% −3.5±6.4
2ndAd courtT 50 58% +3.1±9.1
2ndAd courtWide 81 51% −3.0±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 130 51% −3.6±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 66 54% −2.1±8.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 62 58% +4.0±8.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 60% · +2.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 56% · −1.2±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 55% · −2.1±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 54% · −3.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 52% · −5.1±11.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.4% · won 60% · +12.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 3.1% · won 58% · +10.2±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 54% · +6.2±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 54% · +5.4±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.3% · won 52% · +3.9±9.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 63% · +10.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 60% · +6.7±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 57% · +4.4±6.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 58% · +5.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 1.7% · won 57% · +4.5±11.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 63% · +13.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +23.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (6/7), Sara Sorribes Tormo (8/9)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 59% · +9.7±10.0 vs own baseline · +12.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (5/9), Sara Sorribes Tormo (4/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 57% · +7.7±10.3 vs own baseline · +2.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Lena Friedsam (3/6), Diane Parry (4/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.6% · won 59% · +9.2±12.1 vs own baseline · +26.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (3/6), Mirra Andreeva (6/7)
  5. BH down the line → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +9.0±12.8 vs own baseline · +20.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (5/6)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +7.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +16.1 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 their forehand · return+3.4151
FH to their backhand · rally+2.1357
BH to the middle · return+1.7330
BH to their forehand · return+1.3137
FH to their forehand · rally+1.2582

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.4421
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.4187
BH to their forehand · rally−1.9236
FH to their backhand · return−1.7140
BH to their backhand · serve +1−1.7155

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.84, Caroline Wozniacki +3.50, Angelique Kerber +3.20, Daria Kasatkina +2.97, Sara Errani +2.85

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.50, Marie Bouzkova +1.91, Angelique Kerber +1.86, Elina Avanesyan +1.68, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.58

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Clara Burel, Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Arianne Hartono, Angelique Kerber

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad50%
Drop shots / shot2.5%
Avg rally length4.3
1st serve in64%
Run-around forehands9%
Deep returns33%
Unforced errors / shot10.3%
Serve & volley0%
Point-ending shots23.2%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Chipped returns8%
T serves · deuce34%
BH down the line18%
Points at net5%
Forehand share51%
Backhand slice3%
T serves · ad25%
Through the middle23%
FH down the line22%

Plays most like

  1. Elena Vesnina 2007–2016 plan v
  2. Linda Klimovicova 2022–2026 plan v
  3. Magda Linette 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Anastasija Sevastova 2011–2025 plan v
  6. Su Wei Hsieh 2015–2024 plan v
  7. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v
  8. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches