RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 94 charted matches · 2013–2023

Garbine Muguruza

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.0% ±2.5 raw 58.9% · tour 56.3% · 6,372 points
Return points won 47.8% ±2.6 raw 44.2% · tour 43.7% · 6,491 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 ±0.05 better than 47% of WTA · raw −0.04
Shot selection +0.58 ±0.06 better than 96% of WTA · raw +0.58
Execution −0.03 ±0.27 better than 60% of WTA · raw −0.03
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 93 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.49 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 66% 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 32,767 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Garbine Muguruza 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 · 2,178 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 52.0%±3.5 52.7%
BH through the middle 16% 45.9%±4.2 46.2%
FH through the middle 14% 46.6%±4.5 45.8%
BH down the line 14% 51.1%±4.5 50.0%
FH down the line 14% 50.1%±4.6 52.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 51.8%±5.1 50.9%
BH crosscourt + approach 2% 69.2%±10.3 66.7%
FH down the line + approach 1% 73.8%±11.0 68.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,882 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 44.6%±2.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 45.2%±3.6 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 40.9%±4.2 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 24.0%±7.5 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 33.4%±8.9 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 1% 70.2%±11.9 65.4%
FH slice down the line 1% 22.7%±11.0 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,731 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 45.7%±3.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 37% 43.3%±3.2 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 51.8%±4.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 1% 33.0%±12.4 34.4%
BH down the line + approach 1% 73.7%±12.4 70.2%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 63.8%±14.2 68.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,254 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 20% 56.4%±5.0 52.3%
BH through the middle 19% 41.6%±5.1 46.2%
FH down the line 15% 49.1%±5.7 53.0%
FH through the middle 15% 41.0%±5.7 46.5%
BH down the line 13% 51.4%±6.1 50.6%
BH crosscourt 13% 44.9%±6.0 50.8%
BH crosscourt + approach 2% 62.8%±11.7 64.5%
FH down the line + approach 2% 77.1%±10.9 69.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Garbine Muguruza's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 652 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 34% 68% / 66%
Body 18% 15% 56% / 57%
T 47% 51% 74% / 68%

3,149 normal · 158 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 46% 70% / 66%
Body 23% 14% ▼ 57% / 56%
T 39% 41% 65% / 64%

2,550 normal · 494 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% 60.5%±2.3 n=1,162 35%
Body18% 53.8%±3.3 n=595 3% ▼
T47% 62.5%±2.0 n=1,550 62% ▲

Off equilibrium (p < 0.001): serve T more. Gap 2.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 59.4%±2.3 n=1,202 55% ▲
Body22% 55.2%±3.1 n=656 6% ▼
T39% 57.1%±2.3 n=1,186 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.96 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: −0.7±2.2 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. (2,005 repeats, 4,158 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 372 44% −0.1±4.1
1stAd courtT 845 36% +0.5±2.7
1stAd courtWide 683 35% +0.5±2.9
1stDeuce courtBody 407 43% +0.1±3.9
1stDeuce courtT 839 35% +3.0±2.7
1stDeuce courtWide 883 33% −1.1±2.6
2ndAd courtBody 497 57% +2.4±3.5
2ndAd courtT 243 60% +5.2±4.9
2ndAd courtWide 461 54% +0.2±3.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 554 56% +1.1±3.4
2ndDeuce courtT 396 59% +3.3±3.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 286 57% +3.6±4.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 62% · −0.5±6.4 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −4.4±6.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.2% · won 56% · −5.8±6.4 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 56% · −6.3±6.5 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 55% · −7.8±6.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 57% · +13.3±6.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 54% · +10.0±5.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.4% · won 53% · +9.5±5.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 54% · +10.2±5.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 53% · +8.8±5.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.3% · won 53% · +4.8±4.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 54% · +5.3±5.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 57% · +8.6±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 55% · +6.7±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH down the line used 2.0% · won 52% · +3.8±6.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Garbine Muguruza 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 crosscourt used 0.8% · won 56% · +8.0±6.5 vs own baseline · +2.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sharapova (3/8), Sofia Kenin (3/6)
  2. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +7.8±7.5 vs own baseline · +6.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Karolina Pliskova (2/7), Kiki Bertens (4/7)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH down the line used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.8±9.8 vs own baseline · +17.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.1% · won 62% · +13.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +31.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.2% · won 57% · +8.8±10.1 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 58% · +9.8±10.8 vs own baseline · +13.8 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+4.5521
FH volley to their forehand · rally+4.4141
BH to their forehand · return +1+2.8364
BH to their backhand · return+2.7847
FH to the middle · return+2.31,351

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−3.3485
BH to their backhand · return−1.9697
BH to their backhand · serve +1−1.8602
BH to their backhand · rally−1.71,332
BH slice to the middle · rally−1.4297

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 returns41%
T serves · deuce47%
Through the middle32%
BH down the line24%
Points at net9%
Point-ending shots25.7%
Unforced errors / shot11.2%
1st serve in63%
T serves · ad39%
Serve & volley0%
Avg rally length4.0
Wide serves · ad39%
FH down the line27%
Chipped returns3%
Forehand share51%
Wide serves · deuce35%
Backhand slice2%
Run-around forehands1%
Drop shots / shot0.3%

Plays most like

  1. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  2. Alison Riske Amritraj 2014–2022 plan v
  3. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  4. Maya Joint 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  6. Jaqueline Cristian 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches