RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 65 charted matches · 2019–2026

Arantxa Rus

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.7% ±2.6 raw 56.3% · tour 56.3% · 4,591 points
Return points won 44.8% ±2.7 raw 45.2% · tour 43.7% · 4,435 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 −0.45 ±0.06 better than 1% of WTA · raw −0.43
Shot selection +0.06 ±0.09 better than 52% of WTA · raw +0.10
Execution +0.02 ±0.34 better than 62% of WTA · raw +0.30
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 63 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.21 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 5% 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 27,314 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Arantxa Rus 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 · 2,223 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 35% 46.9%±2.9 43.3%
BH crosscourt 32% 49.1%±3.0 47.6%
BH down the line 11% 44.4%±5.1 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 33.7%±6.5 34.4%
FH inside-out 4% 52.9%±8.0 52.5%
FH through the middle 3% 42.5%±8.7 45.1%
FH inside-in 3% 58.3%±8.7 55.6%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 41.1%±9.2 40.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,991 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 52.6%±3.7 52.2%
FH through the middle 23% 52.3%±3.8 45.8%
FH crosscourt 19% 48.0%±4.2 52.7%
BH through the middle 18% 43.5%±4.1 46.2%
BH crosscourt 8% 51.2%±6.2 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 41.4%±6.1 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,531 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 44.6%±3.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 34% 41.5%±3.5 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 37.4%±4.8 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 2% 21.7%±9.6 29.2%
FH lob through the middle 1% 30.7%±11.7 29.4%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 29.5%±11.6 31.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 20.8%±11.6 24.3%
FH lob crosscourt 1% 27.1%±12.7 29.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,304 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 44.9%±3.7 47.9%
BH through the middle 29% 45.9%±4.1 42.7%
BH down the line 13% 42.5%±6.0 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 7% 31.3%±7.1 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 33.0%±8.3 38.7%
FH inside-out 3% 48.8%±10.7 54.1%
BH lob through the middle 2% 41.9%±12.1 29.4%
FH inside-in 2% 47.5%±12.7 54.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Arantxa Rus's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 571 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 33% 27% 64% / 66%
Body 28% 19% ▼ 56% / 57%
T 39% 53% ▲ 59% / 68%

2,223 normal · 131 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 57% 62% / 66%
Body 25% 20% 57% / 56%
T 25% 23% 63% / 64%

1,742 normal · 440 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
Wide32% 55.5%±2.9 n=759 39% ▲
Body28% 51.9%±3.1 n=658 13% ▼
T40% 56.6%±2.6 n=937 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 57.5%±2.4 n=1,124 52%
Body24% 56.4%±3.4 n=530 9% ▼
T24% 58.1%±3.4 n=528 39% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.83).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.45 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: +3.2±3.0 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. (1,717 repeats, 2,689 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 396 44% +0.3±4.0
1stAd courtT 467 36% +0.4±3.5
1stAd courtWide 436 40% +5.1±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 422 45% +2.3±3.8
1stDeuce courtT 392 31% −1.2±3.7
1stDeuce courtWide 624 39% +5.5±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 371 55% +0.4±4.1
2ndAd courtT 241 56% +0.9±5.0
2ndAd courtWide 189 51% −2.4±5.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 407 51% −3.6±3.9
2ndDeuce courtT 112 66% +10.0±6.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 297 57% +3.2±4.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 59% · +0.1±5.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 57% · −1.9±7.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 57% · −2.5±4.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 55% · −3.9±5.8 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · −5.5±7.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 58% · +12.8±6.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.4% · won 56% · +11.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 54% · +8.8±6.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 51% · +6.5±6.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.7% · won 50% · +5.5±5.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.8% · won 51% · +4.7±4.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 51% · +5.2±5.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 50% · +3.5±5.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 48% · +2.2±3.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 49% · +2.6±5.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → BH through the middle return, short → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 61% · +14.6±11.3 vs own baseline · +16.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +8.9±9.0 vs own baseline · +4.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nuria Parrizas Diaz (4/6)
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 56% · +8.9±9.0 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 57% · +10.1±9.9 vs own baseline · +6.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 58% · +11.3±10.7 vs own baseline · +7.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.4% · won 51% · +4.6±5.5 vs own baseline · +6.7 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 the middle · return+2.31,091
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.81,124
FH to the middle · return +1+1.6513
BH to the middle · return +1+1.5567
FH to the middle · rally+1.31,684

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−2.9536
FH slice to their backhand · rally−2.9134
BH to the middle · return−2.61,095
BH to their forehand · return +1−2.3371
BH to their forehand · rally−1.81,390

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.41, Caroline Wozniacki +1.94, Angelique Kerber +1.87, Maja Chwalinska +1.44, Daria Kasatkina +1.41

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.13, Sara Errani +2.10, Marie Bouzkova +1.86, Elina Avanesyan +1.52, Magdalena Frech +1.39

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Alexandra Eala, Magdalena Frech, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

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

1st serve in72%
Avg rally length5.1
Through the middle37%
Wide serves · ad52%
Run-around forehands13%
Forehand share57%
T serves · deuce40%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice11%
BH down the line19%
Deep returns30%
FH down the line26%
Chipped returns4%
Points at net4%
Unforced errors / shot8.9%
Wide serves · deuce32%
Point-ending shots18.0%
Drop shots / shot0.1%
T serves · ad24%

Plays most like

  1. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 2020–2025 plan v
  2. Lesia Tsurenko 2013–2024 plan v
  3. Johanna Larsson 2013–2019 plan v
  4. Beatriz Haddad Maia 2019–2025 plan v
  5. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Angelique Kerber 2011–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches