RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 7 charted matches · 2014–2017

Carina Witthoeft

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.8% ±3.8 raw 53.8% · tour 56.3% · 437 points
Return points won 43.0% ±3.8 raw 41.7% · tour 43.7% · 393 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 −0.20 ±0.15 better than 17% of WTA · raw −0.17
Shot selection +0.19 ±0.19 better than 64% of WTA · raw +0.24
Execution −0.43 ±0.74 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.05

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 2,265 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Carina Witthoeft 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 · 175 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 41.1%±9.9 52.7%
BH crosscourt 20% 62.2%±10.8 50.9%
BH through the middle 18% 51.5%±11.5 46.2%
FH down the line 18% 59.7%±11.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 14% 55.9%±12.2 45.8%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 121 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 51.4%±9.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 35% 44.6%±10.4 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 48.5%±12.7 46.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 113 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 45.2%±10.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 32% 43.3%±10.9 41.3%
FH down the line 28% 34.6%±10.8 44.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 78 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 57.5%±11.7 47.9%
BH through the middle 31% 28.5%±11.2 42.7%
BH down the line 24% 44.5%±13.1 46.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +11 How much less varied Carina Witthoeft's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 55 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 31% 60% / 66%
Body 22% 13% ▼ 51% / 57%
T 41% 56% ▲ 70% / 68%

209 normal · 16 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 24% 18% 63% / 66%
Body 32% 23% ▼ 57% / 56%
T 44% 59% ▲ 58% / 64%

172 normal · 39 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
Wide36% 54.5%±7.7 n=82 52% ▲
Body21% 51.7%±9.3 n=48 6% ▼
T42% 52.1%±7.3 n=95 42%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.86).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide23% 54.2%±9.2 n=49 38% ▲
Body30% 52.4%±8.5 n=64 15% ▼
T46% 57.4%±7.2 n=98 47%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.65).
Optimal mix: +0.6 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: +1.8±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. (136 repeats, 286 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 30 47% +3.1±10.6
1stAd courtT 47 32% −3.5±8.7
1stAd courtWide 38 34% −0.1±9.5
1stDeuce courtBody 33 47% +4.7±10.3
1stDeuce courtT 43 34% +1.6±9.1
1stDeuce courtWide 47 33% −1.3±8.8
2ndAd courtBody 46 51% −4.4±9.4
2ndAd courtT 13 55% −0.4±12.5
2ndAd courtWide 16 48% −5.6±12.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 32 51% −3.9±10.4
2ndDeuce courtT 29 51% −5.5±10.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 18 59% +4.8±11.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Not enough data

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.4% · won 56% · +9.1±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 6.6% · won 54% · +6.7±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 54% · +6.9±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 51% · +4.1±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 48% · +1.3±11.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Carina Witthoeft 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 1.8% · won 55% · +7.9±12.0 vs own baseline · +15.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nicole Gibbs (7/9)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 53% · +6.0±12.6 vs own baseline · +12.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nicole Gibbs (8/11)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 52% · +4.8±12.4 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Saisai Zheng (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.2% · won 49% · +2.4±13.1 vs own baseline · +9.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 48% · +1.2±12.9 vs own baseline · −3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nicole Gibbs (3/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 42% · −5.3±12.1 vs own baseline · −13.3 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 backhand · rally+1.5140
FH to their forehand · rally−0.7174

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · rally−1.2142
FH to their forehand · rally−0.4172

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Yulia Putintseva, Elsa Jacquemot, Caroline Wozniacki

Charted matches