RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 33 charted matches · 2013–2026

Dayana Yastremska

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.8% ±3.0 raw 56.1% · tour 56.3% · 2,333 points
Return points won 44.9% ±3.1 raw 42.2% · tour 43.7% · 2,324 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 ±0.08 better than 43% of WTA · raw −0.06
Shot selection +0.11 ±0.22 better than 56% of WTA · raw +0.11
Execution −1.81 ±0.55 better than 6% of WTA · raw −1.78
Tactical adaptability −0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 32 matches
Adaptation speed −0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.66 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 40% 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 11,487 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Dayana Yastremska 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 · 685 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 24% 45.1%±6.0 52.2%
FH crosscourt 24% 57.4%±6.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 43.4%±7.0 45.8%
BH down the line 12% 41.2%±8.0 50.0%
BH through the middle 11% 45.0%±8.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 51.2%±8.4 50.9%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 57.8%±14.8 66.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 501 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 53% 48.5%±4.9 46.7%
FH down the line 27% 45.1%±6.6 44.9%
FH through the middle 19% 40.9%±7.6 41.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 486 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 43.5%±6.0 43.3%
BH crosscourt 33% 55.5%±6.1 47.6%
BH down the line 27% 48.9%±6.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 2% 37.1%±14.1 34.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 386 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 55.6%±7.6 52.3%
FH down the line 20% 49.1%±8.3 53.0%
BH down the line 18% 45.2%±8.6 50.6%
FH through the middle 14% 46.4%±9.5 46.5%
BH through the middle 14% 52.4%±9.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 9% 49.4%±11.1 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Dayana Yastremska's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 268 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 33% ▼ 63% / 66%
Body 16% 19% 62% / 57%
T 37% 48% ▲ 69% / 68%

1,143 normal · 75 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 48% 68% / 66%
Body 18% 14% 56% / 56%
T 42% 38% 61% / 64%

922 normal · 193 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
Wide46% 57.8%±3.4 n=555 61% ▲
Body16% 60.8%±5.3 n=200 10% ▼
T38% 54.4%±3.7 n=463 29% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.17).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 57.3%±3.6 n=468 57% ▲
Body17% 49.9%±5.6 n=189 2% ▼
T41% 54.9%±3.7 n=458 41%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.11).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.44 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: −3.0±3.0 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. (870 repeats, 1,397 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 163 44% −0.3±5.9
1stAd courtT 258 34% −2.0±4.6
1stAd courtWide 257 32% −2.6±4.5
1stDeuce courtBody 197 44% +1.3±5.4
1stDeuce courtT 277 32% −0.3±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 289 35% +0.5±4.4
2ndAd courtBody 189 55% +0.4±5.5
2ndAd courtT 78 52% −2.7±7.9
2ndAd courtWide 172 53% ±0.0±5.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 223 50% −4.1±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 126 51% −5.5±6.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 94 59% +5.2±7.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 68% · +6.2±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 60% · −1.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 60% · −1.6±7.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 58% · −3.9±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 57% · −4.9±9.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 57% · +14.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 57% · +15.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 54% · +12.2±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 53% · +10.9±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 52% · +10.1±9.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 58% · +10.4±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 57% · +9.7±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.4% · won 52% · +4.3±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 52% · +4.6±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 51% · +3.4±9.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Dayana Yastremska 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 → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 60% · +12.3±11.0 vs own baseline · +19.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 58% · +9.5±10.6 vs own baseline · +14.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 57% · +8.8±10.7 vs own baseline · +8.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (6/11)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.5% · won 58% · +9.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 56% · +7.8±10.6 vs own baseline · +7.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Aoi Ito (5/8)
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.8±11.5 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

BH to their backhand · return +1+1.0160
FH to their forehand · serve +1+0.6322
Body 2nd serve · ad court+0.1171
Body 1st serve · deuce court±0.0200
Body 1st serve · ad court−0.4189

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−1.4127
BH to the middle · serve +1−1.3258
BH to the middle · return +1−1.2171
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.9460
FH to the middle · return +1−0.8138

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.25, Caroline Wozniacki +1.88, Tatjana Maria +1.33, Sara Errani +1.25, Daria Kasatkina +1.23

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.34, Angelique Kerber −0.01, Elina Avanesyan −0.43, Marie Bouzkova −0.43, Alexandra Eala −0.67

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line32%
Deep returns42%
Unforced errors / shot14.3%
Point-ending shots31.4%
Wide serves · deuce46%
FH down the line32%
Forehand share55%
T serves · ad41%
Run-around forehands9%
T serves · deuce38%
Wide serves · ad42%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Through the middle27%
Points at net5%
Backhand slice5%
Chipped returns4%
Avg rally length3.6
1st serve in57%

Plays most like

  1. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v
  3. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v
  4. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  5. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Qinwen Zheng 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010

Charted matches