RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2017–2026

Anna Bondar

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.1% ±3.0 raw 59.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,190 points
Return points won 43.4% ±3.0 raw 41.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,238 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 −0.11 ±0.11 better than 35% of WTA · raw −0.10
Shot selection +0.19 ±0.20 better than 63% of WTA · raw +0.19
Execution −0.59 ±0.68 better than 30% of WTA · raw −0.53
Tactical adaptability −0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 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 32% 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 6,147 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anna Bondar 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 · 410 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 46.4%±6.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 38.8%±7.1 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 30.9%±9.2 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 36.9%±11.3 40.4%
FH inside-out 5% 62.2%±12.5 52.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 30.5%±12.1 34.4%
FH inside-in 3% 53.5%±14.5 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 282 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 27% 48.9%±8.4 52.2%
FH through the middle 19% 48.9%±9.6 45.8%
BH through the middle 17% 47.4%±10.0 46.2%
FH crosscourt 17% 57.5%±9.9 52.7%
BH crosscourt 12% 53.1%±11.1 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 53.5%±12.5 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 260 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 48.6%±7.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 32% 43.5%±8.0 41.3%
FH down the line 18% 44.1%±9.9 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 31.0%±12.9 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 29.7%±12.7 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 214 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 47.4%±8.5 47.8%
BH through the middle 33% 39.6%±8.5 43.0%
BH down the line 10% 54.3%±12.8 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 8% 23.4%±11.4 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 40.3%±13.3 39.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −8 How much less varied Anna Bondar'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% 32% ▼ 66% / 66%
Body 20% 23% 65% / 57%
T 34% 45% ▲ 75% / 68%

582 normal · 31 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 32% 68% / 66%
Body 14% 24% ▲ 63% / 56%
T 55% 44% ▼ 66% / 64%

473 normal · 104 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% 56.3%±4.6 n=282 46%
Body20% 59.7%±6.5 n=122 5% ▼
T34% 58.4%±5.2 n=209 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.69).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide31% 60.3%±5.6 n=177 30%
Body16% 58.9%±7.3 n=92 1% ▼
T53% 61.5%±4.4 n=308 69% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.82).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.53 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: −0.8±4.3 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. (443 repeats, 711 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 111 39% −4.8±6.8
1stAd courtT 115 32% −3.4±6.4
1stAd courtWide 157 32% −2.2±5.6
1stDeuce courtBody 125 39% −4.0±6.4
1stDeuce courtT 101 28% −4.2±6.5
1stDeuce courtWide 132 29% −4.9±5.9
2ndAd courtBody 86 56% +1.4±7.6
2ndAd courtT 30 59% +4.1±10.4
2ndAd courtWide 101 54% +0.7±7.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 149 50% −4.0±6.1
2ndDeuce courtT 85 56% +0.3±7.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 46 51% −2.3±9.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 66% · +3.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 60% · −2.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 60% · −3.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · −4.3±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 59% · −4.2±10.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 55% · +11.5±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 51% · +7.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 50% · +6.8±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.1% · won 47% · +3.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.9% · won 46% · +3.0±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 60% · +11.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 56% · +7.4±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.9% · won 54% · +5.8±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 53% · +4.5±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 51% · +2.5±9.5 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 Bondar wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 51% · +5.9±10.2 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (7/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 51% · +5.2±11.2 vs own baseline · +6.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (2/7), Suzan Lamens (6/7)
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 48% · +3.0±12.7 vs own baseline · +11.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 48% · +3.0±12.7 vs own baseline · −0.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 47% · +1.9±10.4 vs own baseline · ±0.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Suzan Lamens (3/6), Anastasia Tikhonova (3/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 45% · −0.4±12.5 vs own baseline · −9.2 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 backhand · serve +1+2.4131
BH to the middle · return+1.7329
BH to the middle · rally+1.3233
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.8209
FH to the middle · rally+0.3211

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−4.1169
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.4142
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.3168
BH to their forehand · return−0.9120
FH to their forehand · rally−0.6338

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.53, Caroline Wozniacki +2.29, Angelique Kerber +1.75, Daria Kasatkina +1.72, Maja Chwalinska +1.55

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.71, Angelique Kerber +1.43, Marie Bouzkova +1.40, Elina Avanesyan +1.21, Katie Volynets +0.98

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad53%
Run-around forehands16%
FH down the line34%
Through the middle32%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Drop shots / shot1.9%
Forehand share55%
Points at net7%
Backhand slice14%
Unforced errors / shot10.5%
Deep returns32%
Point-ending shots23.3%
Serve & volley0%
Chipped returns9%
Avg rally length4.0
T serves · deuce34%
BH down the line17%
Wide serves · ad31%
1st serve in57%

Plays most like

  1. Jennifer Brady 2016–2023 plan v
  2. Louisa Chirico 2015–2017 plan v
  3. Paula Badosa 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  6. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  7. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v
  8. R – plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Justine Henin 1999–2010
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches