RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2015–2024

Daria Saville

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.3% ±3.2 raw 53.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,114 points
Return points won 44.3% ±3.2 raw 43.1% · tour 43.7% · 1,110 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 ±0.20 better than 67% of WTA · raw +0.07
Shot selection −0.41 ±0.34 better than 16% of WTA · raw −0.40
Execution +0.28 ±0.46 better than 71% of WTA · raw +0.35
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.68 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 36% 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 5,924 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Daria Saville 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 · 460 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 18% 39.9%±7.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 38.2%±8.2 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 15% 37.8%±8.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 37.6%±8.9 40.4%
FH inside-out 10% 49.2%±10.3 52.5%
BH down the line 8% 48.9%±10.8 46.8%
FH inside-in 7% 58.7%±11.1 55.6%
FH through the middle 3% 48.6%±13.9 45.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 310 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 45.1%±6.8 46.7%
FH down the line 24% 43.1%±8.4 44.9%
FH through the middle 17% 39.5%±9.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 9% 28.3%±10.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 24.1%±11.3 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 263 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 56.4%±8.1 52.7%
FH down the line 26% 56.2%±8.7 52.2%
FH through the middle 18% 46.5%±10.0 45.8%
BH through the middle 11% 46.3%±11.8 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 6% 47.1%±13.7 44.8%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 216 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 25% 43.5%±9.4 43.0%
BH slice through the middle 21% 33.3%±9.6 33.2%
BH crosscourt 20% 55.6%±10.2 47.8%
BH down the line 13% 42.2%±11.7 46.2%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 47.7%±12.1 39.6%
FH inside-out 6% 54.8%±14.3 55.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Daria Saville's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 134 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 51% ▲ 59% / 66%
Body 21% 14% 55% / 57%
T 37% 35% 64% / 68%

537 normal · 43 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 63% ▲ 62% / 66%
Body 16% 18% 55% / 56%
T 30% 20% ▼ 61% / 64%

437 normal · 91 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
Wide43% 51.5%±4.9 n=247 41% ▼
Body21% 55.4%±6.7 n=119 7% ▼
T37% 56.9%±5.2 n=214 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide56% 54.8%±4.5 n=294 64% ▲
Body16% 54.3%±7.7 n=84 1% ▼
T28% 52.3%±6.1 n=150 35% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.84).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.39 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: −3.7±4.7 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. (412 repeats, 668 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 38 40% −3.9±9.8
1stAd courtT 118 32% −4.0±6.3
1stAd courtWide 155 39% +4.6±5.9
1stDeuce courtBody 61 44% +1.1±8.6
1stDeuce courtT 162 32% −0.6±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 132 41% +7.5±6.4
2ndAd courtBody 58 55% +0.1±8.7
2ndAd courtT 39 50% −5.0±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 126 46% −7.3±6.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 81 53% −1.0±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 80 54% −1.6±7.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 59 62% +8.2±8.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.7% · won 67% · +5.7±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 65% · +3.9±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 63% · +2.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 63% · +1.9±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 59% · −1.5±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 5.2% · won 51% · +9.5±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.6% · won 49% · +7.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.9% · won 48% · +6.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.9% · won 46% · +5.2±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 7.8% · won 45% · +3.9±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.7% · won 52% · +6.6±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 48% · +2.7±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 47% · +1.6±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 48% · +1.9±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.1% · won 47% · +1.0±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 57% · +11.4±10.2 vs own baseline · +16.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (2/6), Emma Navarro (4/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.8% · won 53% · +7.5±12.1 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lucia Bronzetti (6/7)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +6.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +8.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lucia Bronzetti (3/7)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.6% · won 51% · +5.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lucia Bronzetti (5/10)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 47% · +2.0±12.3 vs own baseline · −5.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (4/6)
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 47% · +1.1±11.8 vs own baseline · +3.3 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

BH to the middle · return+2.9197
BH to the middle · rally+2.3178
FH to the middle · rally+2.0181
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.2188
FH to their backhand · rally+0.6371

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.4143
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.5205
BH to their backhand · rally−2.1286
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.0126
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.7125

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.89, Caroline Wozniacki +2.79, Daria Kasatkina +2.16, Sara Errani +2.04, Angelique Kerber +1.96

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.45, Sara Errani +2.44, Elina Avanesyan +2.06, Marie Bouzkova +2.05, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.75

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands26%
Forehand share62%
Wide serves · ad56%
Backhand slice37%
1st serve in67%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
BH down the line23%
Avg rally length4.3
FH down the line31%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Chipped returns12%
T serves · deuce37%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Through the middle27%
Deep returns30%
Point-ending shots20.3%
Unforced errors / shot8.9%
T serves · ad28%

Plays most like

  1. Tamara Zidansek 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Mayar Sherif 2021–2025 plan v
  3. Svetlana Kuznetsova 2004–2021 plan v
  4. Petra Martic 2010–2024 plan v
  5. Daria Kasatkina 2015–2026 plan v
  6. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  7. Cristina Bucsa 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Conchita Martinez 1993–2003
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches