RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2002–2015

Daniela Hantuchova

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.7% ±3.1 raw 56.6% · tour 56.3% · 1,247 points
Return points won 45.4% ±3.3 raw 41.8% · tour 43.7% · 1,226 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 +0.36 ±0.08 better than 97% of WTA · raw +0.34
Shot selection +0.10 ±0.14 better than 55% of WTA · raw +0.07
Execution +0.31 ±0.66 better than 73% of WTA · raw +0.05
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed +0.11 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.27 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 87% 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 5,652 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Daniela Hantuchova 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 · 294 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 55.7%±8.3 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 49.3%±9.0 52.2%
BH crosscourt 15% 44.7%±10.3 50.9%
BH down the line 12% 49.1%±11.1 50.0%
BH through the middle 11% 49.5%±11.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 10% 37.0%±11.3 45.8%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 282 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 49.7%±6.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 41.7%±8.6 43.3%
BH down the line 23% 43.3%±8.9 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 30.5%±12.1 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 271 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 51.9%±6.7 46.7%
FH down the line 28% 44.8%±8.3 44.9%
FH through the middle 18% 41.0%±9.7 41.3%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 181 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 53.5%±9.8 52.3%
BH crosscourt 20% 51.1%±10.9 50.8%
FH down the line 16% 52.2%±11.7 53.0%
BH through the middle 12% 38.7%±12.4 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 49.0%±13.2 50.6%
FH through the middle 10% 46.9%±13.1 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Daniela Hantuchova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 147 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 49% 70% / 66%
Body 13% 8% 54% / 57%
T 38% 44% 60% / 68%

582 normal · 39 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 45% 70% / 66%
Body 9% 9% 53% / 56%
T 43% 45% 63% / 64%

475 normal · 108 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
Wide49% 59.6%±4.4 n=303 64% ▲
Body13% 56.1%±7.9 n=78 0% ▼
T39% 52.1%±5.0 n=240 36% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 59.7%±4.6 n=275 62% ▲
Body9% 51.0%±8.9 n=55 0% ▼
T43% 55.8%±4.9 n=253 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.73 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: −3.5±5.8 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. (529 repeats, 637 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 62 44% −0.2±8.5
1stAd courtT 146 39% +3.5±6.0
1stAd courtWide 136 32% −2.9±5.9
1stDeuce courtBody 91 43% +0.2±7.4
1stDeuce courtT 128 24% −8.3±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 153 33% −0.6±5.7
2ndAd courtBody 92 55% −0.5±7.4
2ndAd courtT 59 52% −2.8±8.7
2ndAd courtWide 80 56% +2.9±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 121 57% +2.1±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 59 55% −1.2±8.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 73 52% −2.2±8.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 65% · +4.4±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 63% · +1.9±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 60% · −0.5±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 6.3% · won 60% · −1.2±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 57% · −3.7±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 61% · +13.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 52% · +4.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 52% · +5.0±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 50% · +3.0±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.6% · won 45% · −2.2±10.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 57% · +9.2±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 10.1% · won 51% · +3.5±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 50% · +2.7±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 51% · +2.8±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 49% · +1.3±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Daniela Hantuchova 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 crosscourt used 0.6% · won 60% · +11.5±12.5 vs own baseline · +22.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ana Ivanovic (6/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 52% · +4.0±11.9 vs own baseline · +2.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 51% · +2.8±10.7 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (3/9), Kim Clijsters (3/6)
  4. FH down the line → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.6% · won 51% · +3.2±12.9 vs own baseline · +5.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.6% · won 51% · +3.2±12.9 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sharapova (4/7)
  6. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 50% · +1.9±12.1 vs own baseline · +4.5 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 · rally+2.1331
FH to their forehand · return+1.9162
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.6148
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.1153
BH to their backhand · return+0.9136

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.9128
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.7121
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.3143
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.2255
T 1st serve · ad court−1.1248

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.

Point-ending shots31.2%
BH down the line27%
FH down the line35%
Unforced errors / shot13.3%
Wide serves · deuce49%
Wide serves · ad47%
Deep returns36%
T serves · ad43%
Drop shots / shot1.9%
T serves · deuce39%
Serve & volley2%
Chipped returns12%
Points at net8%
1st serve in62%
Forehand share52%
Backhand slice9%
Run-around forehands3%
Avg rally length3.6
Through the middle21%

Plays most like

  1. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v
  2. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Viktoria Hruncakova 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Aryna Sabalenka 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Serena Williams 1998–2026 plan v
  6. Talia Gibson 2024–2026 plan v
  7. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  8. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Talia Gibson 2024–2026
  2. Qinwen Zheng 2022–2026
  3. Linda Noskova 2022–2026

Charted matches