WTA · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2018–2024
Clara Burel
Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder
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 3,503 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Clara Burel 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 · 231 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 32% | 45.4%±8.4 | 43.3% |
| BH crosscourt | 25% | 51.3%±9.4 | 47.6% |
| BH down the line | 15% | 47.9%±11.1 | 46.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 12% | 37.3%±11.5 | 34.4% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | 43.1%±13.8 | 40.4% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 218 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 27% | 52.1%±9.2 | 45.8% |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | 54.7%±10.2 | 52.7% |
| FH down the line | 17% | 51.7%±10.9 | 52.2% |
| BH through the middle | 13% | 42.2%±11.7 | 46.2% |
| BH crosscourt | 10% | 59.0%±12.6 | 50.9% |
| BH down the line | 6% | 45.5%±14.3 | 50.0% |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | 49.9%±15.0 | 44.8% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 197 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 50% | 43.2%±7.5 | 46.7% |
| FH through the middle | 27% | 48.3%±9.6 | 41.3% |
| FH down the line | 17% | 48.1%±11.2 | 44.9% |
| FH slice through the middle | 6% | 18.9%±11.6 | 29.2% |
Return +1: drive to your backhand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 124 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 36% | 48.6%±10.2 | 43.0% |
| BH crosscourt | 28% | 48.3%±11.1 | 47.8% |
| BH down the line | 15% | 46.8%±13.1 | 46.2% |
| BH slice through the middle | 15% | 38.5%±13.0 | 33.2% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Clara Burel's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 87 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 43% ▼ | 56% / 66% |
| Body | 27% | 33% | 50% / 57% |
| T | 20% | 24% | 69% / 68% |
308 normal · 21 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 35% | 66% / 66% |
| Body | 21% | 20% | 54% / 56% |
| T | 37% | 45% ▲ | 61% / 64% |
235 normal · 66 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 | 53% | 51.4%±5.8 n=174 | 53% |
| Body | 27% | 48.0%±7.5 n=89 | 12% ▼ |
| T | 20% | 55.5%±8.3 n=66 | 35% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 52.9%±6.7 n=121 | 41% |
| Body | 21% | 46.7%±8.6 n=62 | 5% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 58.3%±6.7 n=118 | 54% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.10).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 0.84 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: +2.0±6.4 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. (231 repeats, 381 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 | 40 | 52% | +7.8±9.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 80 | 41% | +5.1±7.7 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 85 | 44% | +9.3±7.6 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 69 | 47% | +4.6±8.3 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 69 | 39% | +6.9±8.1 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 92 | 37% | +3.0±7.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 55 | 50% | −5.0±8.9 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 14 | 51% | −3.9±12.4 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 49 | 56% | +2.2±9.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 55 | 58% | +3.6±8.8 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 22 | 50% | −6.4±11.4 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 42 | 56% | +2.0±9.6 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Clara Burel's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 5.5% · won 55% · −3.1±11.7 vs own baseline
- Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 5.5% · won 55% · −3.1±11.7 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 7.9% · won 51% · −6.3±10.7 vs own baseline
Return
- vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.0% · won 53% · +2.9±11.6 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.3% · won 51% · +0.9±11.1 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.7% · won 50% · ±0.0±11.0 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 8.0% · won 48% · −1.9±11.3 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.0% · won 41% · −8.8±11.5 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 58% · +7.3±11.1 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 57% · +6.2±11.0 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 4.4% · won 54% · +3.6±11.2 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 5.3% · won 51% · +0.7±10.7 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.6% · won 51% · +0.7±10.5 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Clara Burel wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 52% · +2.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +13.0 vs tour on the same sequence
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 44% · −5.3±12.3 vs own baseline · −7.7 vs tour on the same sequence
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 40% · −9.0±11.7 vs own baseline · −17.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Kalinskaya (3/12)
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 their backhand · rally | +3.6 | 191 |
| FH to the middle · return | +2.6 | 166 |
| BH to the middle · return | +2.4 | 129 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +0.2 | 149 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.2 | 160 |
Most exposed to
| FH to the middle · return | −2.6 | 131 |
| BH to the middle · rally | −0.3 | 140 |
| BH to the middle · return | −0.1 | 120 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +0.1 | 134 |
| Wide 1st serve · ad court | +0.2 | 129 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Elina Avanesyan, Caroline Wozniacki, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Lin Zhu, Qiang Wang
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.
| Drop shots / shot | 4.0% | |
| Through the middle | 37% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 53% | |
| Avg rally length | 4.6 | |
| Backhand slice | 23% | |
| Forehand share | 54% | |
| T serves · ad | 39% | |
| BH down the line | 21% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 40% | |
| Serve & volley | 0% | |
| Run-around forehands | 6% | |
| Points at net | 6% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 10.1% | |
| Point-ending shots | 22.6% | |
| Chipped returns | 6% | |
| FH down the line | 26% | |
| Deep returns | 30% | |
| 1st serve in | 56% | |
| T serves · deuce | 20% |
Plays most like
- Camila Osorio 2021–2026 plan v
- Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
- Yafan Wang 2019–2025 plan v
- Petra Martic 2010–2024 plan v
- Kiki Bertens 2012–2021 plan v
- Yulia Putintseva 2013–2026 plan v
- Alison Van Uytvanck 2015–2022 plan v
- Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
Closest from another era
- Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
- Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
- Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
Charted matches
- Clara Burel v Anna Kalinskaya L Roland Garros R128 · Clay · 27 May 2024
- Caroline Wozniacki v Clara Burel L Miami R128 · Hard · 19 Mar 2024
- Oceane Dodin v Clara Burel L Australian Open R32 · Hard · 19 Jan 2024
- Clara Burel v Jessica Pegula W Australian Open R64 · Hard · 18 Jan 2024
- Clara Burel v Anhelina Kalinina L Indian Wells R128 · Hard · 9 Mar 2022
- Andrea Petkovic v Clara Burel L Melbourne R16 · Hard · 6 Jan 2022
- Shuai Zhang v Clara Burel W Melbourne R32 · Hard · 5 Jan 2022
- Arantxa Rus v Clara Burel W Roland Garros R128 · Clay · 28 Sep 2020
- Emma Raducanu v Clara Burel W US Open Juniors QF · Hard · 7 Sep 2018