RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2022–2024

Brenda Fruhvirtova

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.2% ±3.6 raw 54.8% · tour 56.3% · 555 points
Return points won 42.9% ±3.6 raw 42.7% · tour 43.7% · 531 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 −0.13 ±0.13 better than 30% of WTA · raw −0.09
Shot selection −0.34 ±0.23 better than 19% of WTA · raw −0.27
Execution +0.86 ±1.03 better than 88% of WTA · raw +1.35
Points left on the table 2.52 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 64% 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 3,161 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Brenda Fruhvirtova 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 · 211 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 63.8%±7.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 48.4%±9.5 41.3%
FH down the line 23% 45.6%±9.9 44.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 208 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 24% 63.1%±9.5 50.9%
FH crosscourt 23% 58.2%±9.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 42.4%±10.8 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 57.6%±11.6 46.2%
FH down the line 14% 47.8%±11.7 52.2%
BH down the line 7% 48.6%±13.9 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 181 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 44.3%±8.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 35% 39.4%±8.8 43.3%
BH down the line 11% 43.4%±12.9 46.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 123 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 49.9%±9.0 47.0%
FH down the line 28% 49.6%±11.1 46.4%
FH through the middle 15% 48.1%±13.3 41.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Brenda Fruhvirtova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 69 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 30% ▼ 61% / 66%
Body 21% 20% 55% / 57%
T 38% 50% ▲ 67% / 68%

269 normal · 20 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 63% 67% 60% / 66%
Body 19% 14% 57% / 56%
T 18% 18% 59% / 64%

211 normal · 49 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
Wide40% 58.5%±6.7 n=116 55% ▲
Body21% 54.6%±8.6 n=61 6% ▼
T39% 56.3%±6.8 n=112 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.75).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide63% 52.3%±5.9 n=165 63%
Body18% 56.6%±9.3 n=47 3% ▼
T18% 49.9%±9.3 n=48 34% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.52).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.45 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: +5.2±6.0 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. (228 repeats, 303 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 32 42% −1.7±10.3
1stAd courtT 79 33% −2.8±7.4
1stAd courtWide 56 31% −3.8±8.2
1stDeuce courtBody 44 42% −1.0±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 38 27% −4.7±8.9
1stDeuce courtWide 96 36% +1.9±7.0
2ndAd courtBody 43 62% +7.3±9.3
2ndAd courtT 15 52% −2.8±12.2
2ndAd courtWide 29 61% +7.6±10.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 56 48% −6.4±8.9
2ndDeuce courtT 17 59% +3.1±11.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 25 62% +8.3±10.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 6.4% · won 54% · −6.0±11.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 55% · −5.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 17.0% · won 53% · +2.3±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 17.8% · won 52% · +1.4±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 14.8% · won 47% · −4.4±11.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 15.6% · won 44% · −7.3±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.3% · won 62% · +6.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 60% · +4.3±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 4.1% · won 60% · +4.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 57% · +2.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 58% · +2.7±11.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 60% · +7.8±9.2 vs own baseline · +15.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Paula Ormaechea (5/11), Talia Gibson (4/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 59% · +6.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +13.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 57% · +4.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +10.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.0% · won 56% · +3.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +17.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Paula Ormaechea (6/10)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.5% · won 55% · +2.8±11.5 vs own baseline · +14.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 54% · +2.2±12.1 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

FH to the middle · return+3.4121
FH to the middle · rally+2.0140
FH to their forehand · rally+1.7267
BH to the middle · rally+1.5144
FH to their backhand · rally+1.0144

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−2.2161
FH to their forehand · rally−2.2272
BH to the middle · rally−1.5147
FH to the middle · rally−1.1145
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−0.6134

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad63%
1st serve in70%
Avg rally length4.9
Drop shots / shot2.8%
Through the middle30%
T serves · deuce39%
Deep returns34%
Chipped returns11%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Serve & volley0%
Forehand share52%
Backhand slice6%
FH down the line26%
BH down the line17%
Run-around forehands2%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%
Points at net2%
Point-ending shots17.9%
T serves · ad18%

Plays most like

  1. Angelique Kerber 2011–2024 plan v
  2. Anhelina Kalinina 2019–2025 plan v
  3. Magda Linette 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Elina Avanesyan 2023–2025 plan v
  6. Anastasija Sevastova 2011–2025 plan v
  7. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023 plan v
  8. Magdalena Frech 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches