RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2022–2026

Eva Lys

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 53.4% ±3.3 raw 50.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,316 points
Return points won 45.2% ±3.4 raw 42.8% · tour 43.7% · 1,252 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 ±0.11 better than 46% of WTA · raw −0.05
Shot selection +0.39 ±0.12 better than 88% of WTA · raw +0.38
Execution −0.76 ±0.64 better than 25% of WTA · raw −0.87
Tactical adaptability −0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.43 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 71% 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 6,098 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Eva Lys 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 · 400 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 49.4%±6.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 48.4%±6.9 43.3%
BH down the line 25% 50.3%±7.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.4%±12.1 34.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 395 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 55.4%±7.8 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 53.1%±8.4 52.2%
BH down the line 16% 61.9%±8.7 50.0%
FH through the middle 16% 44.8%±9.0 45.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 53.7%±9.6 50.9%
BH through the middle 12% 46.7%±9.9 46.2%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 321 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 34% 43.7%±7.2 44.9%
FH crosscourt 33% 42.7%±7.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 31% 47.3%±7.5 41.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 238 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 56.5%±9.5 54.0%
FH through the middle 21% 49.4%±9.9 45.5%
FH down the line 18% 52.6%±10.3 53.3%
BH through the middle 13% 47.6%±11.5 46.3%
BH crosscourt 13% 49.0%±11.6 52.5%
BH down the line 13% 46.4%±11.6 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Eva Lys's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 178 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 40% 57% / 66%
Body 27% 17% ▼ 53% / 57%
T 29% 43% ▲ 54% / 68%

633 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 30% 67% / 66%
Body 20% 23% 49% / 56%
T 50% 47% 55% / 64%

485 normal · 136 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
Wide43% 51.5%±4.6 n=293 48% ▲
Body27% 47.0%±5.7 n=179 11% ▼
T30% 51.9%±5.4 n=203 41% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.43).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide30% 53.7%±5.6 n=185 45% ▲
Body21% 45.0%±6.5 n=128 5% ▼
T50% 49.5%±4.5 n=308 50%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.66 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: −4.2±3.7 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. (491 repeats, 765 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 61 43% −0.9±8.5
1stAd courtT 158 36% +0.5±5.8
1stAd courtWide 149 39% +4.3±6.0
1stDeuce courtBody 77 47% +3.9±7.9
1stDeuce courtT 158 30% −2.0±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 161 34% −0.4±5.6
2ndAd courtBody 77 51% −4.1±7.9
2ndAd courtT 48 58% +3.3±9.2
2ndAd courtWide 100 57% +3.4±7.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 108 50% −4.9±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 78 50% −6.2±7.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 61 53% −0.9±8.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 62% · +7.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 58% · +3.9±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 58% · +3.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · +3.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 56% · +1.5±10.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.0% · won 59% · +14.9±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.5% · won 55% · +10.4±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.7% · won 54% · +9.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 53% · +8.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 51% · +6.1±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 64% · +10.4±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 58% · +4.3±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 58% · +3.7±9.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 1.7% · won 59% · +5.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.6% · won 57% · +3.0±8.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 63% · +13.8±10.9 vs own baseline · +21.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iva Jovic (6/7)
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 65% · +15.9±12.1 vs own baseline · +39.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 56% · +6.7±10.7 vs own baseline · +12.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (4/6), Jaqueline Cristian (5/6)
  4. BH down the line → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 57% · +7.8±11.8 vs own baseline · +14.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (9/12)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 54% · +5.0±9.7 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (2/6), Iga Swiatek (4/9)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 55% · +6.5±11.5 vs own baseline · +13.3 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 the middle · rally+1.6262
FH to the middle · rally+1.0248
BH to the middle · serve +1+0.9163
BH to their backhand · rally+0.8357
FH to their forehand · serve +1+0.7153

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−4.2145
BH to their backhand · return−3.3148
FH to their backhand · return−2.3122
BH to the middle · return−1.9272
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.9125

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.39, Caroline Wozniacki +3.07, Daria Kasatkina +2.58, Angelique Kerber +2.45, Sara Errani +2.40

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.70, Angelique Kerber +1.27, Marie Bouzkova +1.18, Elina Avanesyan +0.97, Katie Volynets +0.79

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line29%
Deep returns40%
T serves · ad50%
FH down the line32%
1st serve in65%
Through the middle31%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
Point-ending shots24.3%
Serve & volley0%
Avg rally length4.0
Run-around forehands3%
Backhand slice4%
Forehand share51%
Chipped returns2%
T serves · deuce30%
Points at net2%
Wide serves · ad30%
Drop shots / shot0.1%

Plays most like

  1. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  3. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v
  6. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  7. Tsvetana Pironkova 2007–2021 plan v
  8. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015

Charted matches