RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 42 charted matches · 2019–2026

Anna Kalinskaya

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.3% ±2.6 raw 56.9% · tour 56.3% · 2,989 points
Return points won 46.3% ±2.7 raw 43.2% · tour 43.7% · 2,850 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 +0.14 ±0.08 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.14
Shot selection −0.13 ±0.12 better than 33% of WTA · raw −0.14
Execution +0.51 ±0.40 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.46
Tactical adaptability −0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 41 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.31 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 14,301 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anna Kalinskaya 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 · 826 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 56.5%±5.3 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 58.4%±5.9 52.2%
BH crosscourt 18% 59.2%±6.2 50.9%
FH through the middle 15% 42.4%±6.8 45.8%
BH through the middle 12% 48.1%±7.5 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 51.2%±9.1 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 794 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 48.1%±4.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 40.4%±5.6 43.3%
BH down the line 10% 43.1%±8.0 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 31.2%±10.0 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 26.6%±9.7 34.4%
BH lob through the middle 2% 16.9%±10.0 27.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 668 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 47.1%±4.8 46.7%
FH down the line 23% 48.3%±6.2 44.9%
FH through the middle 23% 41.6%±6.2 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 6% 25.2%±9.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 29.7%±12.7 31.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 30.8%±13.4 24.3%
FH lob through the middle 2% 29.6%±13.7 29.4%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 520 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 55.5%±6.9 53.3%
FH crosscourt 21% 52.6%±7.3 54.0%
BH crosscourt 19% 58.3%±7.4 52.5%
FH through the middle 15% 44.1%±8.2 45.5%
BH through the middle 13% 39.4%±8.6 46.3%
BH down the line 8% 63.7%±10.2 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Anna Kalinskaya's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 353 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 48% 68% / 66%
Body 22% 29% 56% / 57%
T 29% 23% 63% / 68%

1,456 normal · 93 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 46% 63% / 66%
Body 18% 18% 54% / 56%
T 36% 36% 62% / 64%

1,175 normal · 260 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
Wide49% 59.6%±2.9 n=760 64% ▲
Body23% 53.9%±4.2 n=349 7% ▼
T28% 56.0%±3.8 n=440 29%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 57.7%±3.1 n=669 62% ▲
Body18% 53.1%±4.9 n=253 2% ▼
T36% 57.5%±3.5 n=513 36%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.30).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.71 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: −3.3±2.9 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. (1,227 repeats, 1,673 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 146 47% +3.4±6.2
1stAd courtT 301 33% −2.1±4.3
1stAd courtWide 369 34% −0.8±3.9
1stDeuce courtBody 231 46% +3.3±5.1
1stDeuce courtT 287 30% −2.0±4.2
1stDeuce courtWide 444 33% −1.5±3.5
2ndAd courtBody 221 57% +1.7±5.1
2ndAd courtT 79 54% −1.4±7.9
2ndAd courtWide 236 54% +0.2±5.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 265 58% +4.0±4.7
2ndDeuce courtT 145 56% +0.4±6.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 125 54% −0.1±6.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.3% · won 65% · +3.3±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 60% · −0.8±6.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 60% · −1.5±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 59% · −1.8±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 59% · −2.7±8.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 57% · +11.9±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 55% · +9.5±7.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.9% · won 55% · +10.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.1% · won 54% · +8.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 56% · +10.6±9.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.3% · won 59% · +9.4±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.8% · won 57% · +7.2±6.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 60% · +10.9±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 57% · +7.3±7.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · +7.9±9.1 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 Kalinskaya 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 58% · +9.4±7.9 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (4/8), Sloane Stephens (5/10)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 59% · +10.1±9.0 vs own baseline · +11.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Kasatkina (3/7)
  3. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 61% · +12.1±10.3 vs own baseline · +11.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 60% · +11.1±9.8 vs own baseline · +15.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Kasatkina (6/13)
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 61% · +12.2±10.7 vs own baseline · +14.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 59% · +10.3±9.8 vs own baseline · +11.5 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 backhand · return +1+3.7190
FH to their forehand · return+2.4263
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.4249
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.3190
FH to their forehand · rally+2.0787

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.8369
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−2.1265
BH to their backhand · return−1.4394
Body 2nd serve · ad court−1.3221
BH slice to their backhand · rally−1.2136

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.91, Caroline Wozniacki +2.68, Daria Kasatkina +2.12, Angelique Kerber +2.06, Sara Errani +1.97

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.54, Marie Bouzkova +2.11, Angelique Kerber +2.07, Elina Avanesyan +1.85, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.72

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.

Wide serves · deuce49%
1st serve in67%
FH down the line33%
Deep returns37%
Wide serves · ad47%
Point-ending shots26.9%
Chipped returns13%
Unforced errors / shot10.9%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · ad36%
Backhand slice9%
Avg rally length3.9
BH down the line18%
Forehand share51%
Points at net5%
Through the middle26%
Run-around forehands3%
T serves · deuce28%

Plays most like

  1. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  7. Kim Clijsters 2001–2021 plan v
  8. Johanna Konta 2013–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches