WTA · Right-handed · 38 charted matches · 2013–2024
Camila Giorgi
Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle
Against an average opponent
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
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 12,509 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Camila Giorgi 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 · 894 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 28% | 56.1%±5.0 | 52.7% |
| FH through the middle | 23% | 49.2%±5.5 | 45.8% |
| BH through the middle | 15% | 50.8%±6.5 | 46.2% |
| BH crosscourt | 13% | 49.8%±7.1 | 50.9% |
| FH down the line | 11% | 50.8%±7.7 | 52.2% |
| BH down the line | 7% | 55.4%±9.0 | 50.0% |
| BH crosscourt + approach | 2% | 61.0%±13.6 | 66.7% |
| FH down the line + approach | 1% | 62.4%±14.5 | 68.6% |
Return +1: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 547 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 24% | 51.3%±6.7 | 52.3% |
| FH through the middle | 22% | 52.7%±7.0 | 46.5% |
| BH through the middle | 19% | 40.5%±7.3 | 46.2% |
| BH crosscourt | 15% | 48.2%±8.1 | 50.8% |
| FH down the line | 8% | 56.3%±10.1 | 53.0% |
| BH down the line | 6% | 57.6%±11.1 | 50.6% |
| FH down the line + approach | 3% | 76.0%±12.1 | 69.2% |
| FH crosscourt + approach | 2% | 73.0%±12.9 | 66.8% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 529 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 50% | 47.5%±4.9 | 46.7% |
| FH through the middle | 30% | 43.2%±6.1 | 41.3% |
| FH down the line | 17% | 46.4%±7.8 | 44.9% |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | 29.8%±13.1 | 29.2% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side
position worth 45% to the average player · 521 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 48% | 45.0%±5.0 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 31% | 41.8%±6.0 | 43.3% |
| BH down the line | 15% | 59.1%±8.2 | 46.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 2% | 28.7%±13.4 | 34.4% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Camila Giorgi's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 295 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 28% | 29% | 69% / 66% |
| Body | 29% | 29% | 60% / 57% |
| T | 43% | 42% | 72% / 68% |
1,298 normal · 76 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 32% | 33% | 66% / 66% |
| Body | 35% | 33% | 60% / 56% |
| T | 33% | 34% | 70% / 64% |
1,044 normal · 219 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 28% | 59.5%±4.0 n=381 | 28% |
| Body | 29% | 56.8%±3.9 n=400 | 14% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 58.5%±3.2 n=593 | 58% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.67).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 32% | 58.7%±3.9 n=405 | 42% ▲ |
| Body | 35% | 55.2%±3.8 n=442 | 20% ▼ |
| T | 33% | 59.0%±3.8 n=416 | 38% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
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: +0.7±3.3 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. (874 repeats, 1,687 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 210 | 45% | +1.2±5.3 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 314 | 35% | −0.2±4.2 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 254 | 31% | −3.0±4.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 241 | 39% | −3.2±4.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 263 | 29% | −3.2±4.4 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 359 | 31% | −2.6±3.9 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 235 | 55% | −0.5±5.0 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 99 | 54% | −1.2±7.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 143 | 61% | +7.8±6.1 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 270 | 53% | −1.3±4.7 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 124 | 55% | −0.9±6.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 107 | 56% | +1.8±7.0 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Camila Giorgi's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 63% · −1.2±9.1 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.5% · won 63% · −1.1±8.5 vs own baseline
- Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 63% · −1.4±7.7 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 62% · −2.4±8.7 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 60% · −4.1±8.1 vs own baseline
Return
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 57% · +13.9±9.4 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 57% · +13.6±9.6 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 55% · +11.5±9.0 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 54% · +10.2±8.9 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 54% · +10.3±9.0 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 56% · +6.3±7.1 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.6% · won 55% · +5.5±7.4 vs own baseline
- FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 57% · +7.7±9.9 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.9% · won 55% · +5.1±7.9 vs own baseline
- BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 56% · +6.2±9.3 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Camila Giorgi wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 61% · +9.4±9.7 vs own baseline · +14.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Karolina Schmiedlova (3/6), Sara Sorribes Tormo (5/7)
- FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 60% · +8.8±11.1 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence
- FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.8% · won 58% · +6.5±9.8 vs own baseline · +15.3 vs tour on the same sequence
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.0% · won 57% · +5.3±9.0 vs own baseline · +10.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Karolina Schmiedlova (3/9)
- Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH down the line used 0.4% · won 59% · +7.9±11.8 vs own baseline · +16.4 vs tour on the same sequence
- BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +6.9±11.1 vs own baseline · +15.4 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 · serve +1 | +2.8 | 191 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +2.4 | 181 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | +1.9 | 272 |
| BH to their backhand · return | −0.1 | 376 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −0.1 | 823 |
Most exposed to
| Body 2nd serve · deuce court | −1.4 | 270 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | −1.3 | 230 |
| Wide 1st serve · ad court | −1.3 | 453 |
| T 1st serve · deuce court | −1.1 | 495 |
| Body 2nd serve · ad court | −0.8 | 235 |
Best-equipped opponents
Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.77, Caroline Wozniacki +1.32, Tatjana Maria +1.16, Daria Kasatkina +0.76, Sara Errani +0.67
Favourable matchups
Sara Errani +0.71, Angelique Kerber +0.28, Marie Bouzkova +0.19, Katie Volynets ±0.00, Elina Avanesyan ±0.00
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jasmine Paolini, Magda Linette, Naomi Osaka, Iva Jovic, Ons Jabeur
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.
| Point-ending shots | 31.5% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 13.6% | |
| Through the middle | 34% | |
| T serves · deuce | 43% | |
| Forehand share | 54% | |
| Points at net | 8% | |
| Deep returns | 33% | |
| Serve & volley | 0% | |
| BH down the line | 19% | |
| Run-around forehands | 4% | |
| T serves · ad | 33% | |
| Chipped returns | 5% | |
| Backhand slice | 4% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 32% | |
| Avg rally length | 3.5 | |
| Drop shots / shot | 0.2% | |
| 1st serve in | 56% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 28% | |
| FH down the line | 20% |
Plays most like
- Arianne Hartono 2021–2025 plan v
- Coco Vandeweghe 2014–2018 plan v
- Caroline Garcia 2013–2025 plan v
- Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
- Robin Montgomery 2022–2026 plan v
- Danka Kovinic 2015–2023 plan v
- Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v
- Rebecca Marino 2018–2024 plan v
Closest from another era
- Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
- Monica Seles 1990–2003
- Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
Charted matches
- Camila Giorgi v Iga Swiatek Miami R64 · Hard · 23 Mar 2024
- Camila Giorgi v Jessica Pegula L US Open R128 · Hard · 29 Aug 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Bianca Andreescu W Montreal R64 · Hard · 7 Aug 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Venus Williams L Birmingham R32 · Grass · 19 Jun 2023
- Alize Cornet v Camila Giorgi W Roland Garros R128 · Clay · 28 May 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Kaia Kanepi W Miami R128 · Hard · 21 Mar 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Rebecca Peterson W Merida F · Hard · 26 Feb 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Belinda Bencic Australian Open R32 · Hard · 25 Jan 2023
- Anna Karolina Schmiedlova v Camila Giorgi W Australian Open R64 · Hard · 19 Jan 2023
- Camila Giorgi v Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova W Australian Open R128 · Hard · 17 Jan 2023
- Ashleigh Barty v Camila Giorgi L Australian Open R32 · Hard · 22 Jan 2022
- Tereza Martincova v Camila Giorgi W Australian Open R64 · Hard · 19 Jan 2022