RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 25 charted matches · 1988–2001

Arantxa Sanchez Vicario

Archetype: Chip returner · Slice-heavy

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.0% ±2.9 raw 50.6% · tour 56.3% · 1,867 points
Return points won 44.3% ±2.9 raw 39.1% · tour 43.7% · 1,841 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 ±0.14 better than 44% of WTA · raw −0.08
Shot selection −0.58 ±0.24 better than 9% of WTA · raw −0.62
Execution +0.06 ±0.46 better than 64% of WTA · raw −0.25
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 25 matches
Adaptation speed −0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.76 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 27% 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 11,777 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 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 · 734 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 41.7%±5.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 29% 35.6%±5.2 41.3%
FH down the line 26% 43.3%±5.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 28.3%±9.9 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 26.1%±12.0 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 2% 62.0%±13.7 65.4%
FH slice down the line 2% 36.0%±13.7 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 587 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 48.8%±5.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 37.6%±6.9 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 49.1%±8.3 40.4%
BH down the line 11% 43.3%±8.9 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 32.1%±9.5 34.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 41.9%±13.0 31.7%
BH drop shot crosscourt 2% 61.0%±14.2 47.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 529 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 46.9%±5.6 47.0%
FH through the middle 26% 42.2%±6.5 41.5%
FH down the line 22% 38.2%±6.8 46.4%
FH slice through the middle 5% 21.0%±9.8 29.3%
FH slice down the line 3% 34.4%±12.7 25.3%
FH lob through the middle 2% 26.2%±13.0 30.6%

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

position worth 53% to the average player · 481 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 44.1%±5.0 52.9%
BH slice crosscourt 16% 41.3%±8.1 44.5%
BH through the middle 9% 43.7%±10.2 44.8%
BH slice down the line 7% 42.4%±11.0 41.5%
BH down the line 7% 44.7%±11.1 55.6%
BH slice crosscourt + approach 3% 49.9%±14.3 47.4%
BH crosscourt + approach 2% 65.5%±13.8 64.7%
BH slice through the middle 2% 41.5%±14.8 42.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Arantxa Sanchez Vicario's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 236 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 33% 29% 53% / 66%
Body 27% 22% 54% / 57%
T 39% 49% ▲ 56% / 68%

887 normal · 55 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 62% 55% 53% / 66%
Body 17% 15% 51% / 56%
T 20% 30% ▲ 61% / 64%

686 normal · 181 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
Wide33% 47.0%±4.4 n=312 23% ▼
Body27% 50.4%±4.9 n=255 22% ▼
T40% 52.6%±4.1 n=375 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.26).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide61% 50.5%±3.5 n=525 55% ▼
Body17% 49.0%±6.2 n=147 7% ▼
T22% 51.3%±5.5 n=195 38% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.87).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.34 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: +0.1±4.4 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. (703 repeats, 1,056 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 104 36% −7.9±6.8
1stAd courtT 148 35% −0.3±5.9
1stAd courtWide 293 32% −2.2±4.3
1stDeuce courtBody 115 43% +0.7±6.8
1stDeuce courtT 213 34% +1.5±5.0
1stDeuce courtWide 284 32% −1.8±4.3
2ndAd courtBody 119 56% +1.0±6.7
2ndAd courtT 45 47% −7.7±9.5
2ndAd courtWide 142 48% −5.8±6.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 111 52% −2.4±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 53 54% −2.0±9.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 154 51% −2.6±6.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 55% · +2.6±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 54% · +2.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 53% · +0.7±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 52% · −0.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 50% · −1.8±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.1% · won 50% · +10.5±7.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.4% · won 51% · +11.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.0% · won 47% · +7.5±7.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.0% · won 50% · +10.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 45% · +5.0±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 54% · +8.9±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 54% · +9.7±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 50% · +5.7±7.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 49% · +4.2±6.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 1.6% · won 51% · +6.5±9.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +14.2±10.9 vs own baseline · +21.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Monica Seles (21/30)
  2. FH through the middle → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 50% · +6.0±8.4 vs own baseline · +1.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (36/69)
  3. BH crosscourt return, mid → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +9.2±12.0 vs own baseline · +14.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (14/20)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 50% · +6.0±11.0 vs own baseline · +12.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Monica Seles (17/31)
  5. Wide serve → BH slice crosscourt return, mid → BH slice crosscourt used 0.2% · won 52% · +8.5±13.0 vs own baseline · +17.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (10/15)
  6. FH down the line → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 51% · +7.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +7.7 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 slice to their forehand · rally+4.7172
BH slice to their backhand · rally+3.6273
Body 1st serve · ad court+1.8147
BH to their forehand · return+1.7149
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.1155

Most exposed to

BH slice to their backhand · return−6.8270
BH slice to their backhand · return +1−5.4202
BH slice to their backhand · rally−5.3740
BH slice to their backhand · serve +1−4.9171
BH slice to their forehand · rally−4.7296

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tatjana Maria

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length5.5
Wide serves · ad61%
1st serve in69%
Points at net12%
Chipped returns19%
Backhand slice25%
T serves · deuce40%
Serve & volley3%
FH down the line29%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Through the middle26%
Run-around forehands3%
Unforced errors / shot8.6%
Wide serves · deuce33%
BH down the line14%
T serves · ad22%
Point-ending shots16.0%
Forehand share46%
Deep returns14%

Plays most like

  1. Chris Evert 1979–1989 plan v
  2. Angelique Kerber 2011–2024 plan v
  3. Gabriela Sabatini 1988–1995 plan v
  4. Conchita Martinez 1993–2003 plan v
  5. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023 plan v
  6. Martina Hingis 1996–2007 plan v
  7. Flavia Pennetta 2006–2015 plan v
  8. Maja Chwalinska 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Angelique Kerber 2011–2024
  2. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023
  3. Flavia Pennetta 2006–2015

Charted matches