RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 38 charted matches · 2022–2026

Diana Shnaider

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.3% ±2.8 raw 58.0% · tour 56.3% · 2,742 points
Return points won 44.0% ±2.9 raw 41.6% · tour 43.7% · 2,608 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 −0.09 ±0.05 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.09
Shot selection −0.15 ±0.14 better than 31% of WTA · raw −0.15
Execution +0.13 ±0.41 better than 67% of WTA · raw +0.15
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 38 matches
Adaptation speed +0.18 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.07 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 8% 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 13,223 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Diana Shnaider 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 · 891 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 48.7%±4.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 51.6%±5.2 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 47.6%±7.2 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 38.0%±9.2 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 30.8%±10.8 40.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 28.1%±11.1 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 2% 28.2%±12.2 27.1%
FH inside-out 2% 44.3%±13.8 52.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 731 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 24% 50.0%±5.9 52.2%
FH crosscourt 21% 56.0%±6.2 52.7%
BH through the middle 17% 54.0%±6.8 46.2%
BH crosscourt 14% 51.8%±7.4 50.9%
FH through the middle 12% 51.1%±8.0 45.8%
BH down the line 7% 52.8%±9.7 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 2% 45.4%±14.3 44.8%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 73.2%±13.3 69.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 575 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 43.0%±5.0 46.7%
FH down the line 27% 46.8%±6.2 44.9%
FH through the middle 18% 46.9%±7.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 4% 30.6%±11.7 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 29.5%±11.6 31.9%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 477 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 60.8%±6.5 54.0%
FH down the line 20% 53.2%±7.7 53.3%
BH through the middle 18% 53.1%±8.0 46.3%
FH through the middle 14% 46.7%±8.7 45.5%
BH crosscourt 13% 61.1%±8.9 52.5%
BH down the line 8% 47.8%±10.7 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Diana Shnaider's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 270 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 29% 15% ▼ 67% / 66%
Body 33% 36% 61% / 57%
T 39% 49% ▲ 62% / 68%

1,371 normal · 53 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 38% ▼ 65% / 66%
Body 23% 26% 62% / 56%
T 30% 36% 68% / 64%

1,099 normal · 217 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% 57.2%±3.9 n=400 43% ▲
Body33% 56.7%±3.7 n=466 18% ▼
T39% 56.5%±3.4 n=558 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.98).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 59.4%±3.2 n=604 46%
Body23% 55.1%±4.4 n=309 8% ▼
T31% 62.4%±3.8 n=403 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.53 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: −0.4±3.9 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. (772 repeats, 1,892 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 142 40% −3.7±6.2
1stAd courtT 320 34% −1.3±4.2
1stAd courtWide 269 29% −5.2±4.3
1stDeuce courtBody 130 35% −7.1±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 233 29% −3.4±4.6
1stDeuce courtWide 475 33% −1.5±3.4
2ndAd courtBody 208 58% +2.7±5.3
2ndAd courtT 239 55% +0.2±5.0
2ndAd courtWide 69 51% −3.0±8.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 178 54% ±0.0±5.7
2ndDeuce courtT 56 54% −1.6±8.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 287 57% +3.7±4.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 63% · +1.4±6.5 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 61% · −0.4±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 61% · −0.6±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 60% · −1.7±6.6 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 58% · −4.2±8.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.1% · won 61% · +17.7±7.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.4% · won 59% · +15.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.9% · won 54% · +11.0±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 52% · +9.3±8.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 50% · +6.7±8.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 57% · +6.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.0% · won 58% · +7.3±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 58% · +7.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.6% · won 55% · +4.5±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.8% · won 58% · +7.7±10.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 66% · +15.9±10.3 vs own baseline · +23.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH through the middle used 0.3% · won 63% · +13.5±11.8 vs own baseline · +33.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 62% · +12.1±11.8 vs own baseline · +17.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Body serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 62% · +12.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +27.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +9.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +18.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 54% · +4.7±7.4 vs own baseline · +7.5 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 forehand · return +1+2.4164
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.2229
FH to their backhand · rally+2.0784
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.7169
BH to their forehand · rally+1.1624

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.7493
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.6161
FH to their backhand · return +1−2.3327
BH to the middle · return−2.2768
FH to their forehand · rally−2.2425

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.69, Caroline Wozniacki +2.24, Angelique Kerber +2.06, Daria Kasatkina +1.72, Maja Chwalinska +1.72

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.31, Angelique Kerber +2.29, Marie Bouzkova +1.94, Elina Avanesyan +1.85, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.45

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Alexandra Eala, Kayla Day, Caroline Wozniacki, Alize Cornet

Tactical fingerprint

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

1st serve in65%
Wide serves · ad46%
Run-around forehands11%
Chipped returns16%
FH down the line31%
Point-ending shots26.0%
T serves · deuce39%
Unforced errors / shot11.1%
Forehand share54%
Deep returns34%
Through the middle29%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice13%
BH down the line19%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Avg rally length3.9
Points at net5%
T serves · ad31%
Wide serves · deuce28%

Plays most like

  1. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  5. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Xiyu Wang 2019–2025 plan v
  8. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Dinara Safina 2007–2011
  2. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches