RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 115 charted matches · 2019–2026

Coco Gauff

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.7% ±2.4 raw 60.3% · tour 56.3% · 7,446 points
Return points won 47.4% ±2.6 raw 45.6% · tour 43.7% · 7,582 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 −0.25 ±0.04 better than 11% of WTA · raw −0.25
Shot selection +0.40 ±0.08 better than 89% of WTA · raw +0.39
Execution +0.41 ±0.27 better than 76% of WTA · raw +0.36
Tactical adaptability +0.26 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 115 matches
Adaptation speed +0.15 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.86 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 20% 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 39,371 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Coco Gauff 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 forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 2,457 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 51.1%±2.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 33% 45.2%±2.8 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 46.3%±3.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 33.5%±7.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 35.5%±11.2 31.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 39.2%±12.2 24.3%
FH lob through the middle 0% 30.9%±13.4 29.4%
FH down the line + approach 0% 63.6%±14.5 65.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 2,410 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 21% 51.5%±3.6 52.2%
FH through the middle 21% 52.4%±3.6 45.8%
FH crosscourt 18% 51.5%±3.9 52.7%
BH through the middle 15% 48.3%±4.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 57.6%±5.1 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 57.4%±5.5 50.0%
FH slice through the middle 1% 52.3%±11.4 41.0%
BH slice through the middle 1% 41.9%±11.5 44.8%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,995 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 50.4%±2.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 32% 47.0%±3.2 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 52.8%±4.6 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 38.0%±8.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 37.9%±11.0 40.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 25.8%±10.8 31.7%
FH inside-out 1% 62.8%±12.7 52.5%
BH lob through the middle 1% 25.5%±12.5 27.1%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,451 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 19% 41.8%±4.7 46.5%
FH down the line 19% 48.6%±4.8 53.0%
BH through the middle 17% 48.6%±5.0 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 58.2%±5.5 50.8%
FH crosscourt 13% 48.1%±5.7 52.3%
BH down the line 11% 55.8%±6.2 50.6%
FH slice through the middle 2% 48.7%±11.6 41.7%
BH slice through the middle 2% 41.7%±12.0 45.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Coco Gauff's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 705 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 50% 72% / 66%
Body 26% 23% 62% / 57%
T 28% 27% 74% / 68%

3,692 normal · 191 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 37% 69% / 66%
Body 24% 24% 63% / 56%
T 38% 39% 71% / 64%

3,035 normal · 514 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
Wide47% 62.5%±1.8 n=1,829 62% ▲
Body25% 57.5%±2.6 n=985 10% ▼
T28% 60.2%±2.4 n=1,069 28%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.022): serve wide more. Gap 1.9 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide37% 61.1%±2.2 n=1,324 40% ▲
Body24% 58.4%±2.7 n=864 9% ▼
T38% 60.0%±2.2 n=1,361 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.3 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: +0.3±2.2 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. (2,725 repeats, 4,477 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 512 44% −0.1±3.5
1stAd courtT 986 40% +4.7±2.5
1stAd courtWide 761 40% +5.8±2.9
1stDeuce courtBody 533 42% −0.2±3.4
1stDeuce courtT 620 31% −0.7±3.0
1stDeuce courtWide 1,317 38% +4.0±2.2
2ndAd courtBody 584 56% +0.9±3.3
2ndAd courtT 294 55% +0.1±4.5
2ndAd courtWide 499 57% +3.2±3.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 651 57% +2.6±3.1
2ndDeuce courtT 311 54% −1.5±4.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 500 56% +1.9±3.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 55% · −11.8±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 54% · −12.1±5.7 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 53% · −13.0±5.8 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.5% · won 53% · −13.4±5.9 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 52% · −14.6±6.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 60% · +15.1±5.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 55% · +10.4±4.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 58% · +12.5±5.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.0% · won 58% · +13.1±6.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.3% · won 55% · +9.5±5.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 58% · +7.7±4.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 59% · +8.0±6.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 57% · +6.1±5.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 55% · +4.4±4.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 57% · +5.8±6.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Coco Gauff wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 61% · +9.9±6.3 vs own baseline · +9.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marta Kostyuk (3/8), Elina Svitolina (3/7)
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 67% · +15.9±11.1 vs own baseline · +34.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 60% · +9.2±8.9 vs own baseline · +10.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.1% · won 64% · +12.9±11.8 vs own baseline · +33.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Leylah Fernandez (6/7)
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 63% · +11.8±11.4 vs own baseline · +25.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Robin Montgomery (5/8)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.2% · won 59% · +8.4±9.5 vs own baseline · +13.7 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+2.9478
FH slice to their backhand · rally+2.6146
BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.6761
BH to their backhand · rally+2.31,844
BH to the middle · return+1.61,642

Most exposed to

Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.1499
FH volley to their backhand · rally−1.8138
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.6660
BH to the middle · return +1−1.3567
BH to their backhand · return−1.2735

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.16, Caroline Wozniacki +1.73, Daria Kasatkina +1.13, Sara Errani +1.07, Tatjana Maria +1.02

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.68, Angelique Kerber +2.41, Marie Bouzkova +2.31, Elina Avanesyan +2.05, Katie Volynets +1.97

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sloane Stephens, Karolina Muchova, Caroline Wozniacki, Ons Jabeur, Magda Linette

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle34%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Forehand share57%
FH down the line32%
BH down the line21%
Avg rally length4.2
Points at net8%
T serves · ad38%
Serve & volley1%
1st serve in62%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Point-ending shots22.4%
Backhand slice9%
Wide serves · ad37%
Deep returns30%
Unforced errors / shot9.3%
Chipped returns4%
Run-around forehands3%
T serves · deuce28%

Plays most like

  1. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  3. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  4. Yafan Wang 2019–2025 plan v
  5. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  7. Cristina Bucsa 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches