RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 33 charted matches · 2019–2026

Emma Navarro

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.1% ±2.7 raw 55.2% · tour 56.3% · 2,053 points
Return points won 45.4% ±2.8 raw 43.3% · tour 43.7% · 2,026 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 −0.07 ±0.08 better than 40% of WTA · raw −0.06
Shot selection −0.14 ±0.13 better than 33% of WTA · raw −0.13
Execution +0.65 ±0.53 better than 84% of WTA · raw +0.70
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 33 matches
Adaptation speed −0.15 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.56 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 58% 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 10,732 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Emma Navarro 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 · 677 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 60.3%±5.9 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 54.6%±6.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 20% 40.6%±6.4 45.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 52.3%±7.6 50.9%
BH through the middle 12% 50.7%±8.2 46.2%
BH down the line 4% 52.3%±12.4 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 643 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 49.4%±5.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 44.0%±6.4 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 12% 39.1%±8.1 34.4%
BH down the line 12% 43.5%±8.4 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 39.3%±9.3 40.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 36.8%±12.7 31.7%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 51.1%±14.8 49.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 596 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 47.1%±5.1 46.7%
FH through the middle 31% 43.4%±5.8 41.3%
FH down the line 23% 49.0%±6.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 33.7%±11.7 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 359 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 23% 46.4%±8.0 46.5%
FH crosscourt 22% 57.0%±8.2 52.3%
FH down the line 18% 52.5%±8.9 53.0%
BH through the middle 14% 44.0%±9.7 46.2%
BH crosscourt 14% 50.2%±9.8 50.8%
BH down the line 4% 53.3%±14.1 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Emma Navarro's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 230 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 56% ▲ 61% / 66%
Body 25% 18% 60% / 57%
T 30% 25% 65% / 68%

1,010 normal · 55 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 33% ▼ 64% / 66%
Body 20% 25% 58% / 56%
T 37% 42% 60% / 64%

797 normal · 175 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% 54.8%±3.6 n=485 44% ▼
Body25% 56.2%±4.7 n=266 11% ▼
T29% 57.6%±4.4 n=314 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.67).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 54.9%±4.0 n=399 53% ▲
Body21% 51.5%±5.4 n=202 6% ▼
T38% 56.0%±4.1 n=371 41% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.47).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.43 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: +0.5±4.1 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. (557 repeats, 1,414 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 124 36% −8.1±6.4
1stAd courtT 225 30% −5.9±4.7
1stAd courtWide 244 38% +4.0±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 186 42% −1.0±5.5
1stDeuce courtT 206 31% −0.9±5.0
1stDeuce courtWide 277 40% +5.8±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 161 52% −2.9±5.9
2ndAd courtT 66 58% +2.8±8.3
2ndAd courtWide 141 56% +2.1±6.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 205 54% −0.7±5.4
2ndDeuce courtT 87 60% +3.6±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 98 57% +3.4±7.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 64% · +5.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 61% · +1.9±7.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 59% · +0.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 58% · −0.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 57% · −1.5±8.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 59% · +15.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 56% · +11.4±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 55% · +10.7±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 54% · +9.7±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 53% · +8.8±9.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 61% · +11.1±7.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 62% · +12.0±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 61% · +10.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.0% · won 57% · +7.1±6.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 55% · +4.3±7.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Emma Navarro 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 0.8% · won 66% · +16.8±9.5 vs own baseline · +19.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marcela Zacarias (3/8), Daria Saville (6/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 63% · +13.8±9.7 vs own baseline · +18.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Saville (8/9), Katie Volynets (6/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 61% · +11.4±9.7 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 58% · +8.6±9.5 vs own baseline · +8.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marcela Zacarias (7/11)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 60% · +10.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +21.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +12.4±12.5 vs own baseline · +28.4 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

Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.8152
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.5153
FH to their backhand · rally+1.8621
FH to the middle · rally+1.8511
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.7149

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−4.6148
FH to their forehand · return−4.4203
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.1233
BH to their backhand · rally−2.1541
FH to their backhand · return−1.8215

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.20, Caroline Wozniacki +3.18, Daria Kasatkina +2.52, Sara Errani +2.44, Angelique Kerber +2.39

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.66, Angelique Kerber +2.46, Marie Bouzkova +2.24, Elina Avanesyan +2.01, Katie Volynets +1.92

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Alexandra Eala, Magdalena Frech, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns37%
Forehand share57%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Avg rally length4.4
Through the middle31%
1st serve in64%
Backhand slice20%
FH down the line30%
T serves · ad38%
Wide serves · ad41%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Run-around forehands5%
Chipped returns7%
Points at net5%
BH down the line17%
Point-ending shots20.7%
Unforced errors / shot8.8%
T serves · deuce29%

Plays most like

  1. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  3. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  6. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  7. R – plan v
  8. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches