RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 53 charted matches · 1999–2010

Elena Dementieva

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.1% ±2.7 raw 56.0% · tour 56.3% · 4,003 points
Return points won 49.2% ±2.8 raw 46.4% · tour 43.7% · 3,888 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 +0.08 ±0.05 better than 69% of WTA · raw +0.08
Shot selection +0.16 ±0.09 better than 61% of WTA · raw +0.16
Execution +0.58 ±0.32 better than 81% of WTA · raw +0.57
Tactical adaptability −0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 52 matches
Adaptation speed −0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.45 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 69% 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 22,238 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Elena Dementieva 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 · 1,801 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 51.1%±2.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 34% 48.1%±3.3 43.3%
BH down the line 11% 53.0%±5.6 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 43.7%±8.6 34.4%
FH inside-out 2% 50.8%±10.4 52.5%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 36.2%±10.1 40.4%
FH inside-in 1% 56.7%±13.1 55.6%
BH slice down the line 1% 40.4%±13.1 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,201 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 53.3%±3.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 46.8%±4.8 41.3%
FH down the line 18% 44.4%±5.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 35.8%±9.1 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 38.9%±10.8 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,184 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 22% 55.6%±4.9 52.2%
FH crosscourt 21% 58.5%±5.0 52.7%
BH through the middle 17% 57.1%±5.5 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 51.0%±6.2 50.9%
FH through the middle 13% 49.5%±6.2 45.8%
BH down the line 11% 51.6%±6.6 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 2% 60.8%±12.9 68.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,151 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 52.7%±3.6 47.9%
BH through the middle 28% 52.5%±4.5 42.7%
BH down the line 9% 43.8%±7.3 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 7% 37.2%±7.8 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 35.8%±9.5 38.7%
FH inside-out 2% 43.4%±11.8 54.1%
BH slice down the line 2% 30.5%±11.7 34.0%
FH inside-in 1% 48.4%±13.9 54.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Elena Dementieva's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 444 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 57% 49% 64% / 66%
Body 11% 15% 65% / 57%
T 32% 35% 71% / 68%

1,933 normal · 97 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 48% 61% / 66%
Body 21% 21% 54% / 56%
T 38% 31% 63% / 64%

1,551 normal · 347 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
Wide57% 59.4%±2.4 n=1,148 63% ▲
Body12% 59.6%±4.9 n=236 0% ▼
T32% 58.2%±3.1 n=646 37% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.83).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 52.2%±2.9 n=794 56% ▲
Body21% 51.6%±4.0 n=398 6% ▼
T37% 54.4%±3.0 n=706 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.28 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: −1.2±2.6 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. (1,726 repeats, 2,096 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 125 45% +1.4±6.6
1stAd courtT 374 38% +2.3±4.0
1stAd courtWide 638 40% +5.9±3.1
1stDeuce courtBody 203 40% −2.8±5.3
1stDeuce courtT 512 39% +6.5±3.4
1stDeuce courtWide 536 35% +0.6±3.3
2ndAd courtBody 180 55% +0.4±5.6
2ndAd courtT 144 54% −0.7±6.2
2ndAd courtWide 367 63% +9.5±4.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 182 56% +1.4±5.6
2ndDeuce courtT 344 61% +4.9±4.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 214 56% +2.0±5.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.0% · won 60% · −1.1±8.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.0% · won 59% · −2.1±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 58% · −3.3±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 58% · −3.2±7.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 57% · −4.5±8.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 58% · +11.3±6.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.9% · won 59% · +12.5±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.6% · won 59% · +12.7±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.8% · won 54% · +7.5±5.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 2.5% · won 56% · +9.8±7.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 60% · +7.1±5.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 61% · +8.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 57% · +4.2±4.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 61% · +8.5±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 56% · +3.9±5.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Elena Dementieva 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 → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 70% · +18.0±7.3 vs own baseline · +20.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Samantha Stosur (6/9), Caroline Wozniacki (12/16)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 63% · +10.7±8.6 vs own baseline · +13.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (6/10), Dinara Safina (7/9)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 56% · +3.9±4.9 vs own baseline · +7.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nadia Petrova (3/9), Amelie Mauresmo (15/30)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 59% · +6.8±7.8 vs own baseline · +7.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Chakvetadze (3/7), Dinara Safina (7/14)
  5. Wide serve → FH down the line return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 61% · +8.5±9.5 vs own baseline · +11.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jelena Jankovic (4/8), Nadia Petrova (8/10)
  6. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +10.0±10.5 vs own baseline · +19.8 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 slice to the middle · rally+2.2198
BH to the middle · rally+1.91,318
FH to their backhand · rally+1.81,040
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.6442
BH to their backhand · return +1+1.2395

Most exposed to

T 2nd serve · ad court−3.9144
Body 2nd serve · ad court−3.0180
FH to the middle · return−2.0880
BH to their forehand · return−1.7175
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.5182

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Serena Williams, Caroline Wozniacki, Ons Jabeur, Karolina Muchova, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce57%
Avg rally length4.6
FH down the line32%
Wide serves · ad42%
1st serve in63%
Through the middle29%
Run-around forehands7%
T serves · ad37%
Serve & volley0%
Deep returns32%
BH down the line19%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Points at net6%
Backhand slice9%
Chipped returns4%
T serves · deuce32%
Point-ending shots20.4%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%
Forehand share49%

Plays most like

  1. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  4. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Kim Clijsters 2001–2021 plan v
  6. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Yafan Wang 2019–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026
  2. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026
  3. Lin Zhu 2016–2025

Charted matches