RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 45 charted matches · 2018–2026

Elise Mertens

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.8% ±2.7 raw 56.7% · tour 56.3% · 2,979 points
Return points won 45.0% ±2.7 raw 41.6% · tour 43.7% · 2,968 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 +0.04 ±0.07 better than 61% of WTA · raw +0.04
Shot selection −0.32 ±0.13 better than 21% of WTA · raw −0.33
Execution +0.47 ±0.40 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.44
Tactical adaptability −0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 43 matches
Adaptation speed −0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.47 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 67% 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 15,322 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Elise Mertens 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 · 982 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 48.4%±4.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 47.7%±5.2 43.3%
BH down the line 19% 47.8%±5.7 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 35.0%±8.6 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 32.8%±8.5 34.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 36.3%±13.6 31.7%
BH drop shot down the line 1% 40.7%±13.9 49.1%
BH lob through the middle 1% 24.0%±12.6 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 937 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 51.3%±5.4 52.2%
FH crosscourt 22% 54.9%±5.5 52.7%
BH through the middle 15% 51.1%±6.5 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 45.0%±6.6 45.8%
BH crosscourt 11% 51.3%±7.4 50.9%
BH down the line 9% 51.5%±8.2 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 838 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 36% 49.2%±4.6 46.7%
FH down the line 25% 45.9%±5.4 44.9%
FH through the middle 21% 36.5%±5.7 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 8% 31.3%±8.1 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 34.1%±10.9 31.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 21.5%±11.9 24.3%
FH lob through the middle 1% 28.6%±13.4 29.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 508 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 20% 46.5%±7.4 50.8%
FH down the line 19% 51.4%±7.6 53.0%
BH through the middle 16% 47.7%±8.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 53.4%±8.3 46.5%
FH crosscourt 14% 42.7%±8.6 52.3%
BH down the line 10% 52.2%±9.6 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Elise Mertens's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 337 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 48% 67% / 66%
Body 24% 16% 57% / 57%
T 31% 36% 71% / 68%

1,466 normal · 75 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 35% 72% / 66%
Body 22% 25% 58% / 56%
T 43% 40% 67% / 64%

1,169 normal · 262 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% 58.0%±3.0 n=703 61% ▲
Body23% 52.1%±4.2 n=360 8% ▼
T31% 55.1%±3.6 n=478 31%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide35% 59.6%±3.5 n=500 50% ▲
Body23% 55.1%±4.3 n=324 8% ▼
T42% 58.0%±3.2 n=607 42%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.68 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±3.4 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. (837 repeats, 2,045 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 167 44% +0.4±5.8
1stAd courtT 413 36% +0.7±3.8
1stAd courtWide 283 37% +2.7±4.5
1stDeuce courtBody 180 37% −5.6±5.5
1stDeuce courtT 353 31% −1.2±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 429 32% −2.4±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 261 54% −1.3±4.8
2ndAd courtT 102 51% −3.9±7.2
2ndAd courtWide 194 49% −4.4±5.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 276 55% +0.9±4.7
2ndDeuce courtT 154 54% −2.3±6.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 151 50% −3.4±6.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 65% · +2.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 61% · −1.8±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 57% · −5.6±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 56% · −6.2±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 57% · −6.0±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 56% · +12.9±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 52% · +9.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 50% · +7.1±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 49% · +6.5±8.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.2% · won 49% · +6.4±9.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 57% · +8.9±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 55% · +7.0±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH down the line used 3.3% · won 55% · +7.2±7.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 53% · +4.5±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.5% · won 54% · +6.0±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 62% · +14.0±11.3 vs own baseline · +29.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 60% · +11.6±11.2 vs own baseline · +24.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 54% · +5.7±7.4 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ekaterina Alexandrova (3/7), Maya Joint (4/7)
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +10.2±10.9 vs own baseline · +17.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (6/7)
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, deep → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 58% · +10.5±11.1 vs own baseline · +25.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.5% · won 52% · +4.2±7.0 vs own baseline · +5.4 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+2.5184
BH to their forehand · rally+2.2567
FH slice to the middle · rally+1.9141
BH to their forehand · serve +1+1.6206
FH to the middle · return +1+1.5173

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−2.4939
BH to their forehand · serve +1−1.9241
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.7351
FH to their backhand · return +1−1.7190
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.3151

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.10, Caroline Wozniacki +2.88, Daria Kasatkina +2.33, Angelique Kerber +2.20, Sara Errani +2.13

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.61, Angelique Kerber +2.29, Marie Bouzkova +2.22, Elina Avanesyan +2.07, Katie Volynets +1.74

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

FH down the line39%
BH down the line25%
Wide serves · deuce46%
T serves · ad42%
Avg rally length4.1
Chipped returns11%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice12%
Through the middle28%
Deep returns31%
1st serve in61%
Point-ending shots21.7%
Unforced errors / shot9.4%
Wide serves · ad35%
Forehand share51%
T serves · deuce31%
Run-around forehands1%

Plays most like

  1. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  3. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Victoria Azarenka 2009–2025 plan v
  5. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  7. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Martina Hingis 1996–2007

Charted matches