RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 5 charted matches · 2023–2025

Erika Andreeva

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.6% ±3.9 raw 53.0% · tour 56.3% · 385 points
Return points won 42.6% ±3.9 raw 39.6% · tour 43.7% · 374 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 −0.03 ±0.12 better than 49% of WTA · raw −0.02
Shot selection +0.36 ±0.09 better than 86% of WTA · raw +0.38
Execution −0.33 ±0.95 better than 43% of WTA · raw −0.22

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 2,256 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Erika Andreeva 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 · 163 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 37.8%±8.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 45.8%±10.0 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 43.6%±11.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 28.7%±13.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 134 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 42.2%±9.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 28% 40.1%±10.6 41.3%
FH down the line 28% 47.3%±10.9 44.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 127 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 55.7%±11.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 49.1%±12.8 45.8%
BH crosscourt 16% 48.0%±13.0 50.9%
FH down the line 16% 53.6%±13.0 52.2%
BH through the middle 13% 52.0%±13.5 46.2%
BH down the line 9% 51.6%±14.8 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 76 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 20% 49.3%±13.9 46.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 58.5%±13.7 52.3%
FH through the middle 18% 42.1%±13.9 46.5%
FH down the line 17% 47.3%±14.3 53.0%
BH crosscourt 13% 47.2%±15.0 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +15 How much less varied Erika Andreeva's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 49 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 70% ▲ 59% / 66%
Body 25% 20% 57% / 57%
T 20% 10% ▼ 63% / 68%

191 normal · 10 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 54% 61% / 66%
Body 19% 8% ▼ 52% / 56%
T 34% 38% 65% / 64%

145 normal · 39 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
Wide56% 54.7%±6.9 n=112 56%
Body24% 54.1%±9.2 n=49 9% ▼
T20% 59.7%±9.6 n=40 35% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.55).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints won
Wide48% 51.9%±7.5 n=89
Body17% 46.1%±10.5 n=31
T35% 50.1%±8.5 n=64

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.60).

Exploitability 0.63 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: +6.7±7.6 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. (150 repeats, 225 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 38 56% +12.2±9.9
1stAd courtT 56 31% −4.5±8.2
1stAd courtWide 33 32% −2.2±9.7
1stDeuce courtBody 33 43% −0.1±10.2
1stDeuce courtT 29 25% −7.3±9.3
1stDeuce courtWide 70 29% −4.8±7.5
2ndAd courtBody 29 55% +0.1±10.7
2ndAd courtT 15 52% −2.8±12.2
2ndAd courtWide 8 55% +1.9±13.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 24 58% +3.6±11.0
2ndDeuce courtT 6 58% +1.8±13.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 33 45% −9.1±10.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 9.0% · won 61% · −0.6±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 10.0% · won 57% · −4.9±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 23.1% · won 42% · −2.4±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.4% · won 54% · +4.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 50% · +0.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 44% · −5.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 5.8% · won 41% · −8.5±11.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Erika Andreeva 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 crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.6% · won 53% · +5.6±12.3 vs own baseline · +16.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camila Osorio (7/11), Katie Volynets (5/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 51% · +3.3±11.8 vs own baseline · +6.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camila Osorio (3/8), Katie Volynets (7/12)
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 50% · +2.3±13.1 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Katie Volynets (5/9)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 48% · +1.0±12.9 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camila Osorio (2/9)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 43% · −3.8±12.8 vs own baseline · −11.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camila Osorio (2/7)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.2% · won 42% · −5.2±12.9 vs own baseline · −14.7 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+0.8137
BH to their backhand · rally+0.7127
FH to their forehand · rally−0.5156

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−2.1175
BH to their backhand · rally+0.1137

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

Charted matches