RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 17 charted matches · 2019–2025

Beatriz Haddad Maia

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.7% ±3.1 raw 54.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,312 points
Return points won 43.9% ±3.2 raw 40.9% · tour 43.7% · 1,258 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 −0.20 ±0.14 better than 16% of WTA · raw −0.21
Shot selection +0.38 ±0.13 better than 88% of WTA · raw +0.37
Execution +0.34 ±0.58 better than 74% of WTA · raw +0.24
Tactical adaptability +0.16 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed +0.11 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.98 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 12% 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 7,166 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Beatriz Haddad Maia 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 · 472 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 42.2%±6.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 46.5%±7.8 45.8%
FH down the line 18% 51.9%±8.0 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 49.7%±8.3 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 49.6%±9.0 50.9%
BH down the line 3% 50.0%±13.7 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 468 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 55% 49.4%±5.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 24% 33.3%±6.7 41.3%
FH down the line 15% 40.9%±8.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 20.1%±10.6 29.2%
FH slice down the line 3% 21.5%±11.9 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 430 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 42.0%±5.4 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 38.1%±6.6 43.3%
BH down the line 8% 32.1%±10.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 22.0%±10.2 34.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 293 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 46.4%±7.4 47.9%
BH through the middle 29% 32.6%±7.5 42.7%
BH down the line 12% 46.9%±11.2 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 11% 28.8%±10.4 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 36.7%±14.0 38.7%
BH slice down the line 4% 34.9%±14.1 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Beatriz Haddad Maia's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 177 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 31% 37% 62% / 66%
Body 34% 24% ▼ 55% / 57%
T 35% 39% 60% / 68%

638 normal · 41 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 60% ▲ 61% / 66%
Body 33% 25% 56% / 56%
T 22% 15% 69% / 64%

493 normal · 136 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
Wide31% 51.3%±5.3 n=212 44% ▲
Body34% 50.7%±5.1 n=228 18% ▼
T35% 53.4%±5.0 n=239 38% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.78).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 56.9%±4.5 n=305 48%
Body31% 53.8%±5.5 n=195 16% ▼
T21% 61.3%±6.4 n=129 36% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.25).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.65 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: −0.4±3.7 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. (380 repeats, 894 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 95 43% −1.4±7.3
1stAd courtT 176 30% −5.1±5.3
1stAd courtWide 115 35% +1.0±6.5
1stDeuce courtBody 122 39% −3.3±6.5
1stDeuce courtT 148 32% −0.3±5.7
1stDeuce courtWide 164 34% −0.4±5.6
2ndAd courtBody 115 55% −0.2±6.8
2ndAd courtT 47 60% +5.4±9.2
2ndAd courtWide 55 55% +1.8±8.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 114 49% −5.6±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 41 53% −2.8±9.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 60 49% −4.7±8.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 7.1% · won 61% · +3.2±7.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 62% · +4.6±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.3% · won 57% · −0.2±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 3.7% · won 55% · −2.8±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.8% · won 54% · −3.7±10.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.4% · won 57% · +15.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 52% · +10.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.1% · won 49% · +7.6±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 48% · +6.9±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 50% · +8.3±11.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 52% · +8.9±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.8% · won 48% · +4.4±6.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 52% · +8.4±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 49% · +5.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 49% · +5.9±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 56% · +10.5±8.5 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Paula Badosa (5/10), Iga Swiatek (10/18)
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 55% · +9.7±10.0 vs own baseline · +13.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (4/6), Iga Swiatek (6/8)
  3. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, short → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 58% · +12.6±12.5 vs own baseline · +23.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 57% · +11.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +18.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 53% · +7.7±12.4 vs own baseline · +21.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +8.0±13.0 vs own baseline · +17.7 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 the middle · serve +1+2.9171
FH to their backhand · rally+2.5652
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.9178
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.7305
BH to their forehand · rally+1.5430

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−4.2122
BH to their backhand · rally−3.7215
BH to the middle · return−2.8354
FH to their backhand · rally−2.6603
FH to their forehand · rally−2.6383

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.82, Caroline Wozniacki +3.65, Angelique Kerber +3.21, Daria Kasatkina +2.98, Maja Chwalinska +2.82

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.72, Sara Errani +2.63, Marie Bouzkova +2.22, Elina Avanesyan +2.13, Magdalena Frech +1.74

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share61%
1st serve in68%
Deep returns39%
Wide serves · ad48%
Avg rally length4.5
Through the middle31%
Points at net8%
Run-around forehands8%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce35%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Unforced errors / shot9.9%
Backhand slice9%
Chipped returns6%
Point-ending shots20.3%
FH down the line24%
Wide serves · deuce31%
T serves · ad21%
BH down the line11%

Plays most like

  1. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 2020–2025 plan v
  2. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  6. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Suzan Lamens 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Xiyu Wang 2019–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches