RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 13 charted matches · 2017–2025

Bernarda Pera

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.6% ±3.3 raw 56.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,053 points
Return points won 42.6% ±3.3 raw 37.1% · tour 43.7% · 1,012 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 −0.32 ±0.14 better than 5% of WTA · raw −0.33
Shot selection −0.17 ±0.15 better than 31% of WTA · raw −0.19
Execution −1.62 ±0.67 better than 8% of WTA · raw −1.76
Tactical adaptability −0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.15 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.45 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 1% 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 4,833 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Bernarda Pera 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 · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 55.8%±8.3 52.7%
FH through the middle 23% 38.4%±8.5 45.8%
BH through the middle 19% 52.9%±9.3 46.2%
FH down the line 15% 56.7%±10.0 52.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 46.4%±11.6 50.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 247 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 51.6%±7.4 47.6%
BH through the middle 37% 46.1%±7.7 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 31.3%±10.9 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 26.1%±12.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 185 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 45% 43.6%±8.0 46.7%
FH down the line 27% 50.0%±9.8 44.9%
FH through the middle 23% 40.7%±10.3 41.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 176 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 25% 41.0%±10.1 46.3%
FH crosscourt 24% 53.7%±10.3 54.0%
FH through the middle 18% 41.4%±11.3 45.5%
BH crosscourt 16% 53.1%±11.8 52.5%
FH down the line 11% 56.6%±12.9 53.3%
BH down the line 6% 47.3%±15.0 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Bernarda Pera's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 142 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 50% ▲ 69% / 66%
Body 22% 7% ▼ 57% / 57%
T 46% 43% 63% / 68%

512 normal · 28 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 44% ▼ 62% / 66%
Body 21% 25% 56% / 56%
T 25% 31% 67% / 64%

396 normal · 114 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% 61.1%±5.5 n=179 48% ▲
Body21% 55.1%±6.8 n=116 6% ▼
T45% 55.5%±4.9 n=245 46%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.32).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 56.5%±4.8 n=264 56% ▲
Body22% 55.5%±6.9 n=112 7% ▼
T26% 57.3%±6.4 n=134 37% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.93).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.73 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: +7.7±3.4 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. (380 repeats, 644 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 74 41% −3.3±7.9
1stAd courtT 107 27% −8.0±6.3
1stAd courtWide 104 25% −9.6±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 57 40% −2.6±8.6
1stDeuce courtT 111 27% −5.4±6.1
1stDeuce courtWide 146 30% −4.4±5.7
2ndAd courtBody 85 50% −5.0±7.7
2ndAd courtT 67 48% −7.1±8.3
2ndAd courtWide 47 46% −8.0±9.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 110 57% +2.9±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 29 56% −0.4±10.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 70 49% −4.6±8.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 69% · +6.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 67% · +4.3±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.5% · won 65% · +2.1±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 64% · +1.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 64% · +1.7±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 48% · +5.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.8% · won 44% · +2.2±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.2% · won 43% · +0.5±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.0% · won 42% · −0.6±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.5% · won 41% · −0.9±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.6% · won 57% · +8.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 53% · +4.4±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 52% · +3.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 9.0% · won 51% · +2.1±8.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 4.8% · won 50% · +1.6±10.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Bernarda Pera 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 1.6% · won 58% · +9.7±10.6 vs own baseline · +16.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (6/11), Anett Kontaveit (6/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 1.1% · won 54% · +6.2±11.8 vs own baseline · +14.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (4/9)
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +4.6±13.0 vs own baseline · +11.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 51% · +3.0±11.5 vs own baseline · +2.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (3/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.8% · won 51% · +3.3±12.9 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (4/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 50% · +2.1±11.0 vs own baseline · +3.3 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 forehand · rally+2.2192
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.5264
T 1st serve · ad court+0.5134
FH to their backhand · rally+0.1326
BH to the middle · serve +1−0.7137

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · deuce court−1.8198
T 1st serve · ad court−1.3185
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.2180
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.1237
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.0142

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Serena Williams, Madison Keys, Ashlyn Krueger, Karolina Pliskova, Victoria Mboko

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle35%
Wide serves · ad52%
T serves · deuce45%
Unforced errors / shot12.5%
Deep returns37%
Forehand share57%
Point-ending shots26.4%
1st serve in64%
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice12%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Run-around forehands4%
Points at net4%
FH down the line26%
Wide serves · deuce33%
Avg rally length3.6
T serves · ad26%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Maya Joint 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Xiyu Wang 2019–2025 plan v
  3. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Robin Montgomery 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches