RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 43 charted matches · 2020–2026

Clara Tauson

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.3% ±2.6 raw 59.3% · tour 56.3% · 3,028 points
Return points won 44.6% ±2.7 raw 42.3% · tour 43.7% · 3,091 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 +0.21 ±0.06 better than 88% of WTA · raw +0.21
Shot selection −0.45 ±0.14 better than 12% of WTA · raw −0.46
Execution +0.95 ±0.46 better than 90% of WTA · raw +0.84
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 42 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.46 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 68% 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 13,866 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Clara Tauson 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 · 741 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 29% 46.4%±5.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 38.2%±6.7 43.3%
BH down the line 17% 46.4%±6.9 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 14% 32.6%±6.9 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 10% 36.1%±8.3 34.4%
BH slice down the line 4% 24.7%±10.0 31.7%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 54.8%±13.3 49.1%
BH lob through the middle 2% 29.8%±12.7 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 636 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 55.5%±5.6 52.7%
FH down the line 17% 55.1%±7.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 16% 40.1%±7.4 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 40.8%±7.9 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 57.0%±9.0 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 52.3%±10.2 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 2% 38.6%±14.4 44.8%
BH slice down the line 2% 49.2%±15.0 43.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 614 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 48.0%±4.5 46.7%
FH down the line 20% 42.6%±6.8 44.9%
FH through the middle 18% 41.0%±7.1 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 6% 27.3%±9.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 31.6%±12.8 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 463 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 53.0%±6.7 52.3%
FH through the middle 16% 49.8%±8.4 46.5%
FH down the line 14% 52.4%±8.8 53.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 47.8%±9.0 50.8%
BH through the middle 13% 44.2%±9.0 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 51.9%±10.8 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Clara Tauson's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 311 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 44% 72% / 66%
Body 13% 15% 56% / 57%
T 44% 41% 73% / 68%

1,497 normal · 75 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 43% 73% / 66%
Body 10% 11% 57% / 56%
T 50% 46% 66% / 64%

1,213 normal · 236 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
Wide42% 63.1%±3.0 n=668 58% ▲
Body13% 51.7%±5.3 n=211 0% ▼
T44% 58.8%±3.0 n=693 42% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.003): serve wide more. Gap 3.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide40% 60.6%±3.3 n=580 55% ▲
Body10% 55.2%±6.1 n=148 0% ▼
T50% 58.8%±3.0 n=721 45% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.36).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.04 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: −0.5±2.8 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. (1,100 repeats, 1,835 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 166 44% +0.6±5.8
1stAd courtT 342 33% −2.3±4.0
1stAd courtWide 420 34% −0.6±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 176 45% +2.4±5.7
1stDeuce courtT 411 33% +0.9±3.7
1stDeuce courtWide 427 32% −2.5±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 196 56% +0.5±5.4
2ndAd courtT 88 55% −0.4±7.5
2ndAd courtWide 263 55% +1.8±4.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 276 55% +0.6±4.7
2ndDeuce courtT 217 55% −0.6±5.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 104 50% −3.7±7.1

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Clara Tauson'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 2.1% · won 65% · +0.9±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 65% · +0.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 62% · −1.6±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 62% · −1.6±6.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 62% · −2.4±7.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 56% · +11.8±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.4% · won 55% · +10.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.1% · won 55% · +10.6±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 52% · +8.2±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 53% · +8.7±9.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.1% · won 55% · +8.8±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 53% · +6.4±6.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 56% · +9.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 53% · +6.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 53% · +6.6±9.1 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 Tauson wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 65% · +17.4±11.2 vs own baseline · +31.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 61% · +13.4±10.2 vs own baseline · +15.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +10.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +14.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 56% · +7.8±11.3 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +8.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 53% · +4.7±9.3 vs own baseline · +7.0 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 · return+3.8260
T 2nd serve · ad court+2.6176
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.6414
FH to their forehand · return+2.4270
FH to their backhand · return +1+2.4186

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.0440
FH to their backhand · return +1−1.6200
BH to their forehand · return +1−1.6147
FH to their forehand · rally−1.4606
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.2662

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.63, Caroline Wozniacki +2.34, Tatjana Maria +1.94, Daria Kasatkina +1.83, Angelique Kerber +1.74

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.42, Angelique Kerber +2.11, Marie Bouzkova +1.94, Elina Avanesyan +1.90, Katie Volynets +1.66

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot3.1%
T serves · ad50%
Point-ending shots29.1%
T serves · deuce44%
Deep returns36%
Unforced errors / shot12.1%
BH down the line24%
Backhand slice25%
Chipped returns16%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Forehand share54%
Run-around forehands7%
Serve & volley0%
Wide serves · ad40%
Points at net5%
Through the middle27%
1st serve in60%
FH down the line26%
Avg rally length3.5

Plays most like

  1. Viktoria Hruncakova 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  3. Linda Noskova 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  5. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Sofia Kenin 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches