RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 24 charted matches · 2023–2026

Ashlyn Krueger

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.5% ±3.1 raw 57.5% · tour 56.3% · 1,601 points
Return points won 44.1% ±3.1 raw 41.6% · tour 43.7% · 1,609 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 +0.02 ±0.08 better than 57% of WTA · raw +0.03
Shot selection +0.13 ±0.12 better than 59% of WTA · raw +0.14
Execution −0.34 ±0.51 better than 40% of WTA · raw −0.24
Tactical adaptability −0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.40 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 76% 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 7,782 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ashlyn Krueger 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 · 454 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 42.5%±5.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 34.0%±6.7 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 41.9%±7.9 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 24.6%±11.2 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 34.6%±14.3 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 419 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 44.5%±7.3 52.7%
BH through the middle 17% 47.6%±8.5 46.2%
BH crosscourt 16% 47.3%±8.8 50.9%
FH down the line 16% 51.1%±8.8 52.2%
FH through the middle 16% 44.9%±8.9 45.8%
BH down the line 7% 44.9%±11.7 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 415 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 51.5%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 43.9%±7.2 43.3%
BH down the line 19% 44.7%±8.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 36.5%±12.8 34.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 30.1%±13.6 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 40.3%±14.7 40.4%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 269 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 51.7%±7.9 54.0%
BH crosscourt 20% 53.4%±9.5 52.5%
BH through the middle 15% 47.1%±10.6 46.3%
FH down the line 14% 55.4%±10.6 53.3%
FH through the middle 12% 39.4%±11.3 45.5%
BH down the line 4% 50.6%±14.5 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Ashlyn Krueger's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 176 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 37% 61% / 66%
Body 27% 34% 54% / 57%
T 39% 29% ▼ 76% / 68%

802 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 39% ▲ 66% / 66%
Body 18% 15% 52% / 56%
T 52% 46% 68% / 64%

622 normal · 141 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
Wide34% 55.7%±4.6 n=283 34%
Body27% 51.2%±5.1 n=230 12% ▼
T39% 62.7%±4.2 n=324 54% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.006): serve T more. Gap 5.5 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide31% 56.4%±5.0 n=240 32%
Body18% 52.3%±6.4 n=134 2% ▼
T51% 61.1%±3.9 n=389 66% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.08).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.17 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: −1.7±5.5 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. (561 repeats, 991 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 91 41% −3.3±7.3
1stAd courtT 178 37% +1.3±5.5
1stAd courtWide 220 35% +0.5±5.0
1stDeuce courtBody 136 41% −1.2±6.3
1stDeuce courtT 152 31% −1.0±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 276 34% ±0.0±4.5
2ndAd courtBody 132 54% −1.0±6.4
2ndAd courtT 32 49% −5.8±10.4
2ndAd courtWide 120 52% −1.5±6.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 153 58% +3.1±6.0
2ndDeuce courtT 52 57% +1.1±9.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 67 45% −8.3±8.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 65% · +2.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 62% · −0.4±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 61% · −1.9±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 59% · −3.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 58% · −4.5±10.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.8% · won 53% · +11.4±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 54% · +12.3±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.5% · won 49% · +7.1±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.4% · won 47% · +5.5±8.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 48% · +6.5±11.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.8% · won 55% · +9.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 55% · +8.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 53% · +7.5±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 53% · +7.5±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 52% · +6.2±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 Ashlyn Krueger wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 55% · +10.2±11.2 vs own baseline · +11.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Eva Lys (3/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 53% · +8.0±10.7 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 51% · +5.9±9.0 vs own baseline · +4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (2/6), Belinda Bencic (5/9)
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 52% · +6.5±11.7 vs own baseline · +10.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 50% · +4.6±10.2 vs own baseline · +2.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (2/6)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 51% · +5.5±11.9 vs own baseline · +8.7 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

FH to their forehand · return+3.4232
BH to their backhand · return+2.8210
T 1st serve · deuce court+2.6324
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.4169
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.7171

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−2.1307
BH to their forehand · rally−1.5181
FH to their forehand · rally−1.0514
BH to their backhand · rally−1.0341
FH to the middle · return−0.9366

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.98, Caroline Wozniacki +2.82, Angelique Kerber +2.28, Daria Kasatkina +2.19, Maja Chwalinska +2.00

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.72, Angelique Kerber +1.22, Marie Bouzkova +1.18, Elina Avanesyan +1.01, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.96

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.

T serves · ad51%
1st serve in67%
Unforced errors / shot12.7%
Point-ending shots27.1%
Deep returns36%
T serves · deuce39%
Chipped returns11%
Through the middle29%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
Forehand share53%
Points at net6%
Backhand slice9%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Run-around forehands4%
Avg rally length3.8
FH down the line25%
Wide serves · deuce34%
Wide serves · ad31%

Plays most like

  1. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  2. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
  3. Dominika Cibulkova 2009–2019 plan v
  4. Katerina Siniakova 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  6. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Dinara Safina 2007–2011
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches