RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2021–2026

Diane Parry

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.3% ±3.2 raw 58.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,027 points
Return points won 41.5% ±3.2 raw 38.2% · tour 43.7% · 997 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 ±0.09 better than 38% of WTA · raw −0.09
Shot selection −1.27 ±0.44 better than 2% of WTA · raw −1.28
Execution −0.23 ±0.93 better than 47% of WTA · raw −0.29
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.19 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 5% 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 5,436 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Diane Parry 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 · 365 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 25% 40.6%±7.7 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 24% 39.7%±7.7 34.4%
BH through the middle 14% 48.8%±9.8 43.3%
BH crosscourt 12% 46.1%±10.3 47.6%
FH inside-out 8% 59.0%±11.4 52.5%
BH slice down the line 6% 38.0%±12.2 31.7%
FH through the middle 4% 48.5%±14.3 45.1%
FH inside-in 4% 54.9%±14.2 55.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 241 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 34% 42.8%±8.1 41.3%
FH crosscourt 29% 44.8%±8.6 46.7%
FH down the line 26% 45.1%±9.0 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 9% 37.7%±12.3 29.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 229 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 31% 47.7%±8.6 52.2%
FH crosscourt 26% 51.3%±9.3 52.7%
FH through the middle 21% 44.3%±9.9 45.8%
BH through the middle 6% 41.9%±13.9 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 5% 43.6%±14.4 44.8%
FH down the line + approach 5% 76.5%±12.5 68.6%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 177 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice through the middle 31% 30.6%±8.8 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 21% 38.5%±10.6 39.6%
BH through the middle 12% 37.2%±12.3 43.0%
BH crosscourt 8% 45.8%±14.1 47.8%
BH slice down the line 8% 34.5%±13.4 28.7%
FH inside-out 7% 63.9%±13.8 55.4%
BH down the line 7% 38.3%±14.1 46.2%
FH inside-in 6% 52.0%±14.8 55.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Diane Parry's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 114 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 44% 68% / 66%
Body 18% 12% 58% / 57%
T 38% 44% 71% / 68%

502 normal · 34 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 31% 48% ▲ 61% / 66%
Body 15% 14% 57% / 56%
T 54% 39% ▼ 63% / 64%

411 normal · 80 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% 63.3%±4.9 n=233 59% ▲
Body18% 59.2%±7.2 n=96 3% ▼
T39% 59.9%±5.2 n=207 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.57).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide34% 56.5%±5.8 n=167 49% ▲
Body15% 53.2%±8.1 n=72 0% ▼
T51% 54.6%±4.9 n=252 51%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.63 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±4.4 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. (363 repeats, 636 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 57 44% ±0.0±8.8
1stAd courtT 94 32% −3.5±6.9
1stAd courtWide 153 28% −6.4±5.5
1stDeuce courtBody 84 43% +0.2±7.6
1stDeuce courtT 126 29% −2.9±6.0
1stDeuce courtWide 123 26% −8.4±5.8
2ndAd courtBody 58 53% −2.2±8.8
2ndAd courtT 40 59% +4.3±9.7
2ndAd courtWide 73 50% −4.0±8.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 81 57% +2.6±7.7
2ndDeuce courtT 55 48% −8.0±8.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 52 49% −4.8±9.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 65% · +4.6±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 63% · +2.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 61% · +0.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 59% · −1.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 59% · −2.0±10.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice through the middle, deep used 5.0% · won 35% · −0.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 5.8% · won 35% · −1.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle used 5.3% · won 34% · −1.6±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 5.5% · won 30% · −6.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice through the middle used 5.5% · won 26% · −9.8±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 57% · +9.1±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 55% · +6.8±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 3.1% · won 53% · +4.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.6% · won 51% · +3.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH slice through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 2.8% · won 51% · +2.8±11.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +6.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.7% · won 54% · +5.4±12.8 vs own baseline · +16.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 53% · +4.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +6.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 53% · +4.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +20.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 52% · +2.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +1.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.8% · won 49% · +0.6±12.3 vs own baseline · −5.0 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

Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.2167
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.2235
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.6233
FH to their forehand · rally+0.4339
BH slice to the middle · rally±0.0166

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−1.4120
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.3141
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.8211
BH to their backhand · return−0.7158
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.5241

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.70, Caroline Wozniacki +1.53, Tatjana Maria +1.08, Angelique Kerber +1.02, Daria Kasatkina +0.95

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +1.25, Sara Errani +0.80, Elina Avanesyan +0.76, Marie Bouzkova +0.74, Magdalena Frech +0.40

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.

Run-around forehands28%
Chipped returns43%
Backhand slice60%
Forehand share62%
T serves · ad51%
Points at net12%
FH down the line34%
Deep returns37%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Avg rally length4.3
T serves · deuce39%
Serve & volley2%
1st serve in63%
Point-ending shots24.3%
Unforced errors / shot10.2%
Through the middle28%
BH down the line19%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Wide serves · ad34%

Plays most like

  1. Samantha Stosur 2009–2022 plan v
  2. Ashleigh Barty 2013–2022 plan v
  3. Roberta Vinci 2012–2017 plan v
  4. Francesca Schiavone 2006–2017 plan v
  5. Caty Mcnally 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Daria Saville 2015–2024 plan v
  8. Polona Hercog 2013–2021 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Amelie Mauresmo 1999–2009
  2. Justine Henin 1999–2010
  3. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015

Charted matches