RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2015–2023

Danka Kovinic

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.0% ±3.7 raw 49.3% · tour 56.3% · 513 points
Return points won 40.9% ±3.7 raw 34.8% · tour 43.7% · 503 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 ±0.09 better than 12% of WTA · raw −0.26
Shot selection −0.05 ±0.19 better than 40% of WTA · raw −0.08
Execution −2.63 ±0.65 better than 2% of WTA · raw −2.84

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 2,452 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Danka Kovinic 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 · 134 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 53.6%±10.9 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 47.0%±12.2 45.8%
FH down the line 19% 47.7%±12.2 52.2%
BH through the middle 15% 45.6%±13.0 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 50.0%±14.1 50.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 43.0%±14.2 50.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 126 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 32.4%±9.1 46.7%
FH through the middle 29% 32.6%±10.3 41.3%
FH down the line 24% 38.0%±11.3 44.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 112 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 39% 32.3%±9.6 43.3%
BH crosscourt 33% 32.5%±10.2 47.6%
BH down the line 20% 38.9%±12.4 46.8%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 77 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 51.7%±13.3 53.3%
FH through the middle 22% 43.5%±13.4 45.5%
BH through the middle 18% 44.9%±14.0 46.3%
FH crosscourt 16% 55.6%±14.4 54.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Danka Kovinic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 74 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 50% ▲ 52% / 66%
Body 33% 25% ▼ 57% / 57%
T 40% 25% ▼ 68% / 68%

248 normal · 16 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 43% 67% / 66%
Body 17% 14% 51% / 56%
T 40% 43% 63% / 64%

187 normal · 58 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
Wide28% 44.0%±8.0 n=74 28%
Body33% 48.3%±7.6 n=86 17% ▼
T39% 54.2%±7.1 n=104 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 50.3%±7.0 n=107 51% ▲
Body16% 47.2%±9.9 n=39 1% ▼
T40% 50.7%±7.2 n=99 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.81).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.55 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: +6.9±7.9 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. (171 repeats, 320 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 21 40% −4.3±11.3
1stAd courtT 55 31% −4.2±8.3
1stAd courtWide 67 25% −9.4±7.2
1stDeuce courtBody 46 34% −8.7±8.9
1stDeuce courtT 69 29% −3.2±7.5
1stDeuce courtWide 65 25% −8.5±7.4
2ndAd courtBody 48 56% +0.7±9.3
2ndAd courtT 13 48% −7.3±12.5
2ndAd courtWide 34 55% +1.2±10.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 39 51% −3.2±9.9
2ndDeuce courtT 25 54% −1.8±11.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 19 51% −2.5±11.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Not enough data

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 13.4% · won 33% · +2.8±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 10.7% · won 30% · ±0.0±10.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 35% · −1.0±12.5 vs own baseline · −11.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (2/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 30% · −6.0±12.0 vs own baseline · −28.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Emma Raducanu (1/6)

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+0.1127
BH to the middle · return−2.4120

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally+0.2144

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot16.2%
Through the middle38%
Point-ending shots27.5%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
Forehand share56%
T serves · deuce39%
Wide serves · ad44%
BH down the line22%
T serves · ad40%
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice12%
Run-around forehands4%
FH down the line27%
Points at net5%
Deep returns28%
Avg rally length3.6
Wide serves · deuce28%
1st serve in52%

Plays most like

  1. Camila Giorgi 2013–2024 plan v
  2. Robin Montgomery 2022–2026 plan v
  3. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  5. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  6. Coco Vandeweghe 2014–2018 plan v
  7. Rebecca Marino 2018–2024 plan v
  8. Linda Noskova 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches