RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2021–2026

Camila Osorio

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.4% ±3.2 raw 53.8% · tour 56.3% · 1,344 points
Return points won 47.0% ±3.2 raw 46.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,356 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 −0.19 ±0.11 better than 19% of WTA · raw −0.18
Shot selection −0.69 ±0.25 better than 6% of WTA · raw −0.67
Execution −0.11 ±0.67 better than 56% of WTA · raw +0.06
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.68 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 37% 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 7,097 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Camila Osorio 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 backhand side

position worth 45% to the average player · 497 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 25% 55.3%±6.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 20% 50.6%±7.5 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 16% 30.9%±7.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 45.7%±9.2 40.4%
BH down the line 12% 56.9%±9.2 46.8%
FH inside-out 4% 53.8%±13.0 52.5%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 54.0%±14.3 49.1%
BH slice down the line 2% 35.4%±13.9 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 371 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 45.6%±6.5 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 43.6%±7.9 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 40.4%±8.1 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 10% 38.3%±10.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 34.4%±13.0 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 370 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 51.4%±7.8 52.7%
FH down the line 24% 60.4%±7.7 52.2%
FH through the middle 16% 49.6%±9.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 9% 49.5%±11.1 46.2%
BH crosscourt 8% 52.4%±11.6 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 51.2%±12.8 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 3% 46.6%±15.0 44.8%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 231 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 54.8%±9.6 52.3%
FH down the line 20% 66.6%±9.5 53.0%
FH through the middle 16% 50.5%±11.0 46.5%
BH crosscourt 12% 55.6%±11.9 50.8%
BH through the middle 11% 44.0%±12.0 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 54.2%±13.1 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +4 How much less varied Camila Osorio'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 47% 59% ▲ 67% / 66%
Body 32% 33% 57% / 57%
T 21% 8% ▼ 70% / 68%

646 normal · 39 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 28% 66% / 66%
Body 38% 41% 51% / 56%
T 34% 31% 58% / 64%

503 normal · 138 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
Wide48% 59.1%±4.3 n=326 63% ▲
Body32% 53.0%±5.2 n=222 17% ▼
T20% 55.0%±6.3 n=137 20%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.24).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide27% 52.9%±5.7 n=176 43% ▲
Body39% 48.0%±4.9 n=250 24% ▼
T34% 51.4%±5.3 n=215 33%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.46).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.75 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: −2.6±5.9 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. (459 repeats, 827 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 70 52% +8.3±8.2
1stAd courtT 124 37% +1.3±6.4
1stAd courtWide 205 37% +2.3±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 131 48% +5.1±6.5
1stDeuce courtT 139 35% +2.6±6.0
1stDeuce courtWide 186 35% +0.8±5.3
2ndAd courtBody 108 58% +3.3±6.9
2ndAd courtT 39 50% −5.0±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 94 55% +1.4±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 108 55% +0.9±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 69 62% +6.4±8.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 64 55% +1.7±8.4

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Camila Osorio'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 3.9% · won 62% · +3.1±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 59% · +0.5±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 4.2% · won 58% · −0.9±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 57% · −1.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 57% · −1.5±10.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.0% · won 60% · +11.9±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.2% · won 54% · +6.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 55% · +6.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 55% · +6.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 54% · +5.5±11.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.6% · won 66% · +13.9±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH down the line used 2.2% · won 63% · +10.6±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 59% · +6.8±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 57% · +5.1±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 58% · +6.0±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 Camila Osorio wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.9% · won 64% · +13.1±10.6 vs own baseline · +26.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 63% · +12.3±12.0 vs own baseline · +25.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 59% · +8.4±11.2 vs own baseline · +22.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iva Jovic (4/7)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 57% · +6.5±11.3 vs own baseline · +14.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Emma Raducanu (5/8), Erika Andreeva (7/10)
  5. BH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 59% · +8.6±12.8 vs own baseline · +19.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 56% · +5.9±11.7 vs own baseline · +5.5 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+5.4137
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.6155
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.2161
BH to their backhand · return+1.2155
BH slice to their backhand · rally+0.6131

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.6131
T 1st serve · ad court−1.6199
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−0.6266
Body 1st serve · deuce court−0.4183
FH to their backhand · return−0.3228

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.57, Caroline Wozniacki +1.35, Tatjana Maria +0.82, Daria Kasatkina +0.79, Angelique Kerber +0.75

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.88, Angelique Kerber +1.80, Marie Bouzkova +1.68, Elina Avanesyan +1.48, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.29

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot4.1%
Run-around forehands14%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Backhand slice30%
Chipped returns15%
Through the middle31%
FH down the line31%
Avg rally length4.2
Deep returns34%
1st serve in63%
BH down the line21%
Forehand share54%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · ad34%
Point-ending shots21.6%
Points at net4%
Unforced errors / shot8.9%
Wide serves · ad27%
T serves · deuce20%

Plays most like

  1. Clara Burel 2018–2024 plan v
  2. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Yulia Putintseva 2013–2026 plan v
  4. Antonia Ruzic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. R – plan v
  6. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasija Sevastova 2011–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013

Charted matches