RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2023–2025

Elina Avanesyan

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.4% ±3.0 raw 51.8% · tour 56.3% · 1,279 points
Return points won 45.0% ±3.0 raw 42.5% · tour 43.7% · 1,280 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 −0.13 ±0.11 better than 30% of WTA · raw −0.12
Shot selection −0.05 ±0.13 better than 40% of WTA · raw −0.03
Execution +0.98 ±0.49 better than 91% of WTA · raw +1.11
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed −0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.53 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 62% 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 7,668 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Elina Avanesyan 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 · 560 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 47.1%±5.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 39.8%±6.3 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 53.6%±7.4 46.8%
BH lob through the middle 5% 37.1%±11.6 27.1%
BH slice through the middle 3% 39.2%±13.0 34.4%
BH lob crosscourt 3% 41.6%±13.7 32.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 450 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 22% 47.9%±7.5 52.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 44.2%±7.7 52.7%
BH through the middle 16% 45.9%±8.5 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 43.9%±8.8 45.8%
BH down the line 14% 54.8%±8.9 50.0%
BH crosscourt 12% 49.6%±9.5 50.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 435 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 34% 50.8%±6.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 28% 40.9%±6.8 41.3%
FH down the line 27% 46.0%±7.0 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 20.1%±10.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 31.5%±13.3 31.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 392 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 43.0%±5.9 47.9%
BH through the middle 24% 43.5%±7.6 42.7%
BH down the line 18% 51.0%±8.7 46.7%
BH lob through the middle 5% 27.2%±11.6 29.4%
BH lob crosscourt 3% 38.9%±14.0 34.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Elina Avanesyan's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 170 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 24% ▼ 56% / 66%
Body 28% 38% ▲ 54% / 57%
T 24% 38% ▲ 56% / 68%

618 normal · 45 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 54% 62% / 66%
Body 26% 27% 57% / 56%
T 21% 18% 59% / 64%

487 normal · 125 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% 49.4%±4.5 n=308 51% ▲
Body28% 51.2%±5.6 n=188 13% ▼
T25% 49.5%±5.9 n=167 36% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.89).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 55.7%±4.3 n=327 69% ▲
Body26% 52.0%±5.9 n=162 11% ▼
T20% 51.6%±6.6 n=123 20%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.52).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.37 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: −0.3±4.8 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. (464 repeats, 775 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 74 39% −5.3±7.9
1stAd courtT 132 33% −2.4±6.1
1stAd courtWide 175 38% +3.3±5.6
1stDeuce courtBody 98 38% −4.5±7.1
1stDeuce courtT 131 31% −0.7±6.0
1stDeuce courtWide 208 35% +1.4±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 107 53% −2.1±7.0
2ndAd courtT 30 56% +0.8±10.5
2ndAd courtWide 94 52% −1.9±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 127 55% +0.5±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 46 62% +5.6±9.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 54 58% +4.7±8.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 58% · +4.1±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.7% · won 58% · +3.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 55% · +1.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 5.7% · won 54% · +0.5±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 55% · +0.6±10.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, mid used 3.4% · won 54% · +9.5±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, mid used 2.4% · won 52% · +7.2±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 51% · +6.2±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.8% · won 50% · +5.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 49% · +4.2±11.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 57% · +10.4±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.8% · won 54% · +7.4±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 52% · +5.8±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 52% · +5.5±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH down the line used 1.8% · won 52% · +5.9±10.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 54% · +7.4±11.3 vs own baseline · +12.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Kasatkina (4/9)
  2. Body serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 57% · +10.0±12.9 vs own baseline · +30.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 54% · +6.8±11.8 vs own baseline · +15.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Xin Yu Wang (2/6)
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 54% · +7.3±12.7 vs own baseline · +15.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.1% · won 51% · +4.2±9.7 vs own baseline · +5.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jasmine Paolini (4/10), Daria Kasatkina (8/13)
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 52% · +5.7±11.7 vs own baseline · +11.6 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

FH to the middle · return+5.1284
BH to their backhand · return+3.3187
FH to their backhand · return+2.1137
FH to the middle · rally+1.8338
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.7133

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−6.6132
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.8170
BH to their forehand · rally−3.6286
FH to the middle · return−3.4222
FH to their forehand · return−3.3135

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.95, Caroline Wozniacki +3.73, Angelique Kerber +3.62, Daria Kasatkina +3.20, Alexandra Eala +3.06

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +3.21, Angelique Kerber +2.93, Marie Bouzkova +2.87, Beatriz Haddad Maia +2.38, Magdalena Frech +2.27

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki, Emma Raducanu, Alexandra Eala, Daria Kasatkina

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length5.0
1st serve in70%
Wide serves · ad53%
BH down the line27%
FH down the line34%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Deep returns36%
Through the middle29%
Serve & volley0%
Run-around forehands6%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Chipped returns4%
Backhand slice6%
Points at net4%
Unforced errors / shot9.1%
Forehand share51%
Point-ending shots18.8%
T serves · deuce25%
T serves · ad20%

Plays most like

  1. Victoria Mboko 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Lesia Tsurenko 2013–2024 plan v
  3. Daria Kasatkina 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  5. Alison Riske Amritraj 2014–2022 plan v
  6. Alina Korneeva 2023–2026 plan v
  7. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Martina Hingis 1996–2007
  3. Dinara Safina 2007–2011

Charted matches