RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 2014–2023

Anna Lena Friedsam

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.6% ±3.4 raw 55.9% · tour 56.3% · 705 points
Return points won 43.7% ±3.4 raw 42.3% · tour 43.7% · 710 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 ±0.00 ±0.15 better than 52% of WTA · raw +0.01
Shot selection −0.47 ±0.33 better than 12% of WTA · raw −0.44
Execution −0.06 ±1.00 better than 58% of WTA · raw +0.13
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.54 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 61% 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 3,725 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Anna Lena Friedsam 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 · 211 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 38.3%±7.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 36.7%±9.0 41.3%
FH down the line 13% 45.8%±11.8 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 25.3%±12.8 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 210 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 47.2%±8.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 18% 43.3%±10.8 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 15% 39.4%±11.3 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 12% 35.3%±11.7 34.4%
BH down the line 10% 49.6%±12.8 46.8%
BH slice down the line 5% 26.9%±13.1 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 208 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 21% 58.7%±10.1 52.7%
BH crosscourt 20% 46.2%±10.5 50.9%
FH through the middle 19% 51.9%±10.6 45.8%
FH down the line 16% 51.8%±11.3 52.2%
BH through the middle 15% 41.7%±11.4 46.2%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 119 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 28% 59.4%±11.1 52.5%
FH crosscourt 22% 51.7%±12.1 54.0%
FH through the middle 20% 34.3%±11.8 45.5%
BH through the middle 18% 39.7%±12.6 46.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Anna Lena Friedsam's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 83 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 44% 62% / 66%
Body 29% 28% 62% / 57%
T 34% 28% 58% / 68%

345 normal · 18 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 52% 69% / 66%
Body 20% 18% 51% / 56%
T 32% 29% 63% / 64%

274 normal · 65 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
Wide37% 52.8%±6.4 n=135 40% ▲
Body29% 59.9%±6.9 n=105 14% ▼
T34% 53.4%±6.6 n=123 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.30).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 61.4%±5.7 n=166 64% ▲
Body20% 48.4%±8.3 n=67 5% ▼
T31% 55.7%±7.0 n=106 31%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.041): serve wide more. Gap 4.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 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: +0.2±6.0 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. (185 repeats, 497 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 35 36% −8.2±9.8
1stAd courtT 69 30% −5.6±7.6
1stAd courtWide 88 29% −5.4±6.9
1stDeuce courtBody 40 40% −2.9±9.6
1stDeuce courtT 95 36% +3.6±7.0
1stDeuce courtWide 69 40% +5.6±8.1
2ndAd courtBody 65 50% −5.0±8.4
2ndAd courtT 29 52% −3.3±10.7
2ndAd courtWide 58 57% +3.4±8.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 81 54% −0.1±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 42 58% +2.0±9.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 39 52% −1.4±9.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 58% · ±0.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 57% · −0.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 6.4% · won 57% · −0.8±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.5% · won 48% · −2.0±11.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.5% · won 48% · −2.0±11.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 11.3% · won 48% · −1.7±10.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.2% · won 61% · +14.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.7% · won 52% · +5.0±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 7.3% · won 51% · +4.2±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.7% · won 48% · +1.2±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 6.5% · won 48% · +1.0±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 48% · +2.2±11.1 vs own baseline · +1.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (4/7), Arianne Hartono (4/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.4% · won 48% · +2.0±11.5 vs own baseline · +6.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Karolina Pliskova (2/6), Tamara Zidansek (4/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 47% · +1.3±11.0 vs own baseline · +0.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Karolina Pliskova (3/6), Ulrikke Eikeri (4/8)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 46% · +0.2±13.0 vs own baseline · −7.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 38% · −8.2±12.5 vs own baseline · −21.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 34% · −12.3±11.5 vs own baseline · −25.5 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

BH to their backhand · rally+1.9192
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.2123
FH to their forehand · rally+1.1234
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.7166
Wide 1st serve · deuce court±0.0135

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.7189
BH to the middle · return−2.2177
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.8163
BH to the middle · rally−0.7147
FH to their forehand · serve +1±0.0129

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.

1st serve in68%
Points at net11%
Wide serves · ad49%
Backhand slice26%
Chipped returns14%
Avg rally length4.3
Through the middle29%
Serve & volley1%
Forehand share53%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Unforced errors / shot10.1%
Point-ending shots22.7%
T serves · deuce34%
Wide serves · deuce37%
Run-around forehands4%
Deep returns30%
T serves · ad31%
FH down the line25%
BH down the line14%

Plays most like

  1. Andrea Petkovic 2010–2022 plan v
  2. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Olivia Gadecki 2023–2026 plan v
  4. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Ana Bogdan 2019–2024 plan v
  6. Elena Vesnina 2007–2016 plan v
  7. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches