RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 7 charted matches · 2025–2026

Emerson Jones

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.7% ±3.9 raw 52.6% · tour 56.3% · 443 points
Return points won 43.7% ±4.0 raw 39.1% · tour 43.7% · 381 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 −0.12 ±0.13 better than 33% of WTA · raw −0.13
Shot selection −0.07 ±0.22 better than 38% of WTA · raw −0.10
Execution −1.26 ±0.62 better than 14% of WTA · raw −1.46

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 2,129 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Emerson Jones 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 middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 103 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 34% 53.5%±11.1 52.2%
FH through the middle 18% 46.5%±13.1 45.8%
FH crosscourt 17% 51.4%±13.3 52.7%
BH down the line 13% 42.4%±14.2 50.0%
BH through the middle 10% 50.8%±15.0 46.2%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 91 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 41.3%±10.5 46.7%
FH through the middle 30% 38.9%±11.7 41.3%
FH down the line 27% 42.2%±12.1 44.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 75 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 39.1%±10.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 33% 37.0%±11.8 43.3%
BH down the line 20% 49.6%±13.9 46.8%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 60 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 32% 44.3%±13.1 46.3%
FH down the line 18% 37.6%±14.3 53.3%
FH crosscourt 18% 51.0%±14.8 54.0%
FH through the middle 17% 50.4%±15.0 45.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +15 How much less varied Emerson Jones's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 54 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 31% 64% / 66%
Body 24% 46% ▲ 63% / 57%
T 41% 23% ▼ 65% / 68%

215 normal · 13 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 27% ▼ 60% / 66%
Body 23% 10% ▼ 59% / 56%
T 36% 63% ▲ 63% / 64%

170 normal · 41 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
Wide35% 54.0%±7.9 n=79 50% ▲
Body25% 58.7%±8.6 n=58 10% ▼
T40% 51.7%±7.5 n=91 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.44).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide38% 48.7%±7.8 n=80 38%
Body20% 49.7%±9.6 n=43 5% ▼
T42% 53.2%±7.6 n=88 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.71).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.48 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: −3.7±10.1 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. (119 repeats, 306 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 18 42% −1.9±11.7
1stAd courtT 54 35% −0.2±8.6
1stAd courtWide 43 33% −1.1±9.1
1stDeuce courtBody 18 31% −11.8±11.0
1stDeuce courtT 38 27% −4.7±8.9
1stDeuce courtWide 55 34% +0.3±8.5
2ndAd courtBody 15 52% −2.8±12.2
2ndAd courtT 21 54% −1.1±11.5
2ndAd courtWide 29 48% −6.0±10.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 40 52% −2.5±9.8
2ndDeuce courtT 27 59% +3.3±10.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 23 53% −0.7±11.3

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.5% · won 42% · −5.0±12.9 vs own baseline · −9.9 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 their backhand · rally−1.8132
FH to their forehand · rally−2.8135

Most exposed to

Charted matches