RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 196 charted matches · 2017–2026

Bianca Andreescu

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.6% ±2.3 raw 58.9% · tour 56.3% · 14,345 points
Return points won 44.8% ±2.3 raw 43.4% · tour 43.7% · 14,442 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 −0.35 ±0.03 better than 4% of WTA · raw −0.34
Shot selection −0.08 ±0.07 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.05
Execution −0.56 ±0.16 better than 31% of WTA · raw −0.40
Tactical adaptability +0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 189 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.03 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 10% 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 71,484 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Bianca Andreescu 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 · 4,488 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 21% 52.9%±2.6 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 42.7%±2.8 45.8%
FH down the line 17% 51.6%±3.0 52.2%
BH through the middle 12% 45.2%±3.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 7% 52.9%±4.4 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 54.2%±4.7 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 3% 44.9%±6.6 44.8%
BH slice down the line 2% 35.5%±6.9 43.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 4,314 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 28% 45.8%±2.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 43.5%±2.4 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 11% 38.8%±3.6 34.4%
BH down the line 9% 46.6%±4.0 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 38.5%±5.0 40.4%
FH inside-out 4% 55.1%±6.2 52.5%
BH slice down the line 3% 32.9%±6.1 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 2% 24.7%±6.3 27.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 3,269 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 47.1%±2.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 41.6%±2.7 41.3%
FH down the line 17% 44.9%±3.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 10% 28.9%±3.9 29.2%
FH slice down the line 4% 23.6%±6.0 24.3%
FH lob through the middle 3% 34.8%±7.0 29.4%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 27.4%±8.3 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 2% 62.1%±9.5 65.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 2,835 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 21% 52.9%±3.3 52.3%
FH through the middle 18% 43.7%±3.6 46.5%
FH down the line 15% 55.1%±3.9 53.0%
BH through the middle 13% 45.7%±4.1 46.2%
BH crosscourt 9% 53.9%±4.9 50.8%
BH down the line 8% 51.3%±5.2 50.6%
BH slice through the middle 3% 44.6%±7.9 45.9%
BH slice down the line 2% 39.1%±9.1 40.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Bianca Andreescu's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 1506 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 38% 67% / 66%
Body 30% 23% 59% / 57%
T 32% 39% 72% / 68%

7,051 normal · 388 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 42% 67% / 66%
Body 28% 24% 57% / 56%
T 34% 34% 65% / 64%

5,714 normal · 1,118 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
Wide38% 60.9%±1.5 n=2,834 39%
Body30% 56.5%±1.7 n=2,199 14% ▼
T32% 62.1%±1.6 n=2,406 47% ▲

Off equilibrium (p < 0.001): serve T more. Gap 2.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 58.3%±1.6 n=2,651 44% ▲
Body27% 55.9%±1.9 n=1,840 12% ▼
T34% 58.3%±1.7 n=2,341 44% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: −1.3±1.6 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. (4,071 repeats, 9,808 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 1,116 43% −1.3±2.4
1stAd courtT 1,474 36% ±0.0±2.0
1stAd courtWide 1,626 32% −2.5±1.9
1stDeuce courtBody 1,379 44% +1.0±2.2
1stDeuce courtT 1,640 34% +2.2±1.9
1stDeuce courtWide 1,617 32% −1.5±1.9
2ndAd courtBody 1,352 56% +0.6±2.2
2ndAd courtT 410 57% +2.1±3.9
2ndAd courtWide 902 54% +0.1±2.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 1,424 55% +0.2±2.1
2ndDeuce courtT 844 59% +3.0±2.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 602 50% −4.2±3.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 55% · −6.8±4.5 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · −7.7±4.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 53% · −9.2±4.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 52% · −10.2±4.6 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 51% · −11.4±4.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 58% · +15.3±4.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 58% · +15.6±4.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 57% · +14.8±4.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 54% · +12.1±4.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 54% · +11.9±4.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 54% · +7.7±4.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 56% · +9.9±6.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 51% · +5.2±4.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 54% · +8.2±6.1 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 54% · +7.3±5.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash crosscourt used 0.1% · won 69% · +21.2±10.3 vs own baseline · −0.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 65% · +17.1±9.9 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt + approach used 0.1% · won 69% · +20.7±10.7 vs own baseline · +20.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 57% · +9.2±6.5 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lesia Tsurenko (3/6), Alison Riske Amritraj (4/6)
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 58% · +10.3±7.6 vs own baseline · +8.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 56% · +7.7±6.1 vs own baseline · +7.8 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 drop shot to their backhand · rally+4.1218
FH volley to their forehand · rally+3.7327
FH volley to the middle · rally+3.3162
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.8345
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.11,884

Most exposed to

BH slice to their backhand · return +1−1.2177
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−0.9602
FH lob to the middle · rally−0.7176
BH slice to the middle · return +1−0.6182
Body 2nd serve · ad court−0.31,352

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.35, Caroline Wozniacki +1.21, Daria Kasatkina +0.57, Sara Errani +0.47, Angelique Kerber +0.36

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.59, Angelique Kerber +1.52, Marie Bouzkova +1.35, Elina Avanesyan +1.16, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.93

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Tatjana Maria, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle35%
Drop shots / shot2.7%
Points at net12%
Run-around forehands13%
Point-ending shots26.7%
Forehand share55%
1st serve in64%
Deep returns35%
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
Backhand slice19%
BH down the line21%
Serve & volley1%
Chipped returns10%
FH down the line29%
Wide serves · ad39%
Wide serves · deuce38%
T serves · ad34%
Avg rally length3.9
T serves · deuce32%

Plays most like

  1. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  4. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  6. R – plan v
  7. Nadia Podoroska 2020–2026 plan v
  8. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches