RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2014–2018

Coco Vandeweghe

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.4% ±3.0 raw 64.1% · tour 56.3% · 966 points
Return points won 42.5% ±3.1 raw 37.6% · tour 43.7% · 1,112 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 −0.06 ±0.13 better than 44% of WTA · raw −0.06
Shot selection +0.37 ±0.13 better than 86% of WTA · raw +0.36
Execution −1.34 ±0.60 better than 13% of WTA · raw −1.41
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 13 matches
Adaptation speed +0.11 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.73 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 28% 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 4,447 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Coco Vandeweghe 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 · 223 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 45.3%±7.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 39.5%±9.6 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 9% 39.7%±12.7 34.4%
BH down the line 9% 43.4%±12.9 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 33.6%±12.9 40.4%
BH slice down the line 5% 26.1%±12.8 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 196 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 54.5%±8.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 51.2%±11.1 45.8%
BH through the middle 16% 44.7%±11.3 46.2%
FH down the line 16% 54.7%±11.4 52.2%
BH crosscourt 9% 46.4%±13.5 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 54.8%±14.7 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 172 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 48.9%±8.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 28% 38.1%±9.6 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 40.7%±11.0 44.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 149 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 52.2%±10.1 52.3%
BH through the middle 25% 35.5%±10.4 46.2%
FH through the middle 20% 34.6%±11.1 46.5%
FH down the line 11% 54.4%±13.7 53.0%
BH crosscourt 9% 47.5%±14.1 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Coco Vandeweghe's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 81 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 41% 72% / 66%
Body 12% 5% 68% / 57%
T 46% 55% ▲ 77% / 68%

486 normal · 22 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 42% 75% / 66%
Body 15% 15% 53% / 56%
T 46% 42% 70% / 64%

399 normal · 59 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% 65.0%±5.0 n=213 48% ▲
Body12% 66.3%±8.2 n=59 0% ▼
T46% 65.8%±4.8 n=236 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.96).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide40% 62.9%±5.4 n=183 43% ▲
Body15% 57.0%±8.3 n=67 0% ▼
T45% 64.2%±5.1 n=208 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.32).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.77 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: −0.1±4.9 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. (335 repeats, 603 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 63 37% −7.2±8.2
1stAd courtT 139 30% −5.6±5.8
1stAd courtWide 122 30% −4.6±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 78 41% −2.1±7.8
1stDeuce courtT 150 28% −4.0±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 121 30% −4.1±6.1
2ndAd courtBody 88 56% +1.3±7.5
2ndAd courtT 31 52% −3.4±10.5
2ndAd courtWide 94 48% −5.9±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 105 48% −6.8±7.1
2ndDeuce courtT 99 52% −4.2±7.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 22 48% −5.4±11.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 66% · −4.0±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 64% · −5.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 63% · −7.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 63% · −7.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 61% · −8.8±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.9% · won 48% · +8.2±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 46% · +7.0±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 48% · +8.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.3% · won 46% · +6.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 43% · +3.5±10.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 9.5% · won 57% · +7.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 8.2% · won 52% · +2.7±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 5.3% · won 50% · +0.2±11.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 9.3% · won 48% · −2.1±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.6% · won 47% · −2.8±11.6 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 Vandeweghe wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 57% · +8.0±12.0 vs own baseline · +11.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sharapova (4/6)
  2. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 56% · +6.5±13.0 vs own baseline · +14.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 53% · +4.0±13.0 vs own baseline · +10.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Aliaksandra Sasnovich (3/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 52% · +2.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Aliaksandra Sasnovich (3/9)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 45% · −4.6±12.8 vs own baseline · −10.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 44% · −5.2±11.2 vs own baseline · −9.3 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

FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.1141
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.9213
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.6236
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.5183
FH to their forehand · rally±0.0215

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · ad court−0.9223
Wide 1st serve · ad court±0.0216
T 1st serve · deuce court±0.0261
FH to their backhand · serve +1+0.1151
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.1192

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Elena Rybakina, Serena Williams, Rebecca Marino, Madison Keys, Karolina Pliskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Point-ending shots33.6%
Unforced errors / shot14.8%
T serves · deuce46%
T serves · ad45%
Serve & volley5%
Through the middle32%
Run-around forehands9%
Points at net8%
Backhand slice18%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Deep returns33%
Forehand share54%
Wide serves · ad40%
Chipped returns4%
BH down the line15%
Drop shots / shot0.4%
FH down the line23%
Avg rally length3.1
1st serve in54%

Plays most like

  1. Caroline Garcia 2013–2025 plan v
  2. Rebecca Marino 2018–2024 plan v
  3. Arianne Hartono 2021–2025 plan v
  4. Camila Giorgi 2013–2024 plan v
  5. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  6. Elena Rybakina 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches