RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2019–2026

Anna Blinkova

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.8% ±3.1 raw 53.7% · tour 56.3% · 1,320 points
Return points won 45.4% ±3.1 raw 41.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,278 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 +0.06 ±0.09 better than 66% of WTA · raw +0.06
Shot selection +0.20 ±0.13 better than 65% of WTA · raw +0.19
Execution −0.14 ±0.57 better than 55% of WTA · raw −0.17
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed −0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.26 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 89% 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 6,334 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anna Blinkova 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 forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 378 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 39.7%±5.7 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 36.7%±7.7 41.3%
FH down the line 17% 41.6%±8.8 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 40.1%±11.8 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 345 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 48.5%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 46.3%±7.6 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 39.6%±10.1 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 33.0%±13.5 34.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 314 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 50.6%±8.3 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 54.2%±9.1 52.2%
BH crosscourt 17% 48.9%±9.7 50.9%
FH through the middle 16% 43.7%±9.8 45.8%
BH through the middle 16% 43.8%±9.8 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 63.6%±11.9 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 224 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 45.4%±8.8 52.3%
BH crosscourt 18% 57.6%±10.4 50.8%
FH through the middle 16% 41.6%±10.8 46.5%
FH down the line 15% 62.2%±10.9 53.0%
BH through the middle 15% 42.0%±11.2 46.2%
BH down the line 6% 45.8%±14.3 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Anna Blinkova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 169 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 42% 63% / 66%
Body 32% 36% 57% / 57%
T 32% 21% ▼ 65% / 68%

650 normal · 33 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 42% 62% / 66%
Body 28% 26% 57% / 56%
T 34% 32% 63% / 64%

498 normal · 136 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
Wide36% 54.2%±4.9 n=249 37%
Body32% 52.7%±5.2 n=220 17% ▼
T31% 56.1%±5.2 n=214 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.71).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 52.8%±4.9 n=249 54% ▲
Body27% 53.7%±5.8 n=173 12% ▼
T33% 52.7%±5.3 n=212 34%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.97).
Optimal mix: +0.3 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: −1.5±5.2 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. (350 repeats, 927 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 63 40% −3.9±8.4
1stAd courtT 132 35% −0.6±6.2
1stAd courtWide 163 33% −1.1±5.6
1stDeuce courtBody 90 44% +1.4±7.5
1stDeuce courtT 118 30% −2.0±6.2
1stDeuce courtWide 191 29% −5.4±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 91 52% −3.4±7.5
2ndAd courtT 40 51% −4.3±9.8
2ndAd courtWide 120 55% +1.2±6.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 139 53% −1.0±6.3
2ndDeuce courtT 69 49% −6.7±8.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 61 55% +1.3±8.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 63% · +6.0±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 58% · +1.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 57% · −0.5±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 56% · −1.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 56% · −1.6±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 55% · +10.2±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.8% · won 51% · +6.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 52% · +6.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.6% · won 52% · +7.1±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 51% · +6.0±10.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.5% · won 51% · +6.6±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 54% · +8.8±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.6% · won 50% · +5.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 51% · +6.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.1% · won 48% · +3.6±10.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Anna Blinkova 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 1.2% · won 52% · +6.9±10.4 vs own baseline · +2.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jasmine Paolini (6/8)
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 52% · +6.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +4.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 50% · +4.5±10.7 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Astra Sharma (2/8), Jasmine Paolini (3/9)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.6% · won 51% · +5.5±12.4 vs own baseline · +14.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jasmine Paolini (2/6)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +5.6±13.0 vs own baseline · ±0.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 50% · +4.3±12.6 vs own baseline · +2.2 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+4.9134
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.6138
FH to the middle · rally+1.4193
BH to the middle · rally+1.2198
FH to their backhand · rally+1.1225

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−3.5441
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.2131
FH to their backhand · rally−2.1252
BH to the middle · rally−1.5187
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.3123

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.48, Caroline Wozniacki +3.37, Angelique Kerber +2.74, Daria Kasatkina +2.71, Sara Errani +2.58

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.49, Marie Bouzkova +1.91, Angelique Kerber +1.89, Katie Volynets +1.66, Elina Avanesyan +1.66

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns35%
Point-ending shots23.8%
Forehand share53%
Serve & volley0%
Wide serves · ad39%
1st serve in61%
Through the middle28%
T serves · ad33%
Chipped returns6%
Backhand slice8%
FH down the line27%
Points at net5%
Avg rally length3.8
Wide serves · deuce36%
BH down the line17%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
T serves · deuce31%
Run-around forehands2%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%

Plays most like

  1. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v
  7. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches