RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 68 charted matches · 2024–2026

Iva Jovic

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.2% ±2.5 raw 58.6% · tour 56.3% · 4,788 points
Return points won 46.9% ±2.6 raw 46.0% · tour 43.7% · 4,841 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 −0.14 ±0.06 better than 27% of WTA · raw −0.13
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.09 better than 47% of WTA · raw +0.05
Execution +0.01 ±0.35 better than 61% of WTA · raw +0.22
Tactical adaptability −0.23 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 67 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.61 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 51% 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 24,135 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Iva Jovic 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 · 1,559 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 54.8%±4.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 44.5%±4.6 45.8%
FH down the line 19% 53.3%±4.6 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 44.9%±4.8 46.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 49.1%±5.8 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 46.0%±6.7 50.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 65.5%±13.8 69.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,295 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 47.1%±3.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 30% 45.9%±4.1 41.3%
FH down the line 23% 51.6%±4.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 30.4%±8.2 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 35.6%±13.9 31.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 21.5%±11.9 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,286 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 37% 48.1%±3.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 47.1%±4.0 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 47.8%±5.6 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 25.7%±7.3 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 35.1%±8.8 40.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 26.7%±12.3 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 1% 18.9%±11.0 27.1%
BH lob down the line 1% 24.7%±12.7 18.3%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 949 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 53.4%±4.9 52.3%
BH through the middle 18% 53.3%±6.0 46.2%
FH through the middle 17% 48.2%±6.1 46.5%
BH crosscourt 16% 53.0%±6.3 50.8%
FH down the line 14% 57.3%±6.6 53.0%
BH down the line 7% 59.5%±8.5 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Iva Jovic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 528 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 44% 66% / 66%
Body 30% 24% 60% / 57%
T 25% 32% 66% / 68%

2,380 normal · 118 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 41% 64% / 66%
Body 24% 15% ▼ 63% / 56%
T 40% 44% 65% / 64%

1,876 normal · 410 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
Wide45% 59.7%±2.4 n=1,113 60% ▲
Body30% 57.0%±2.9 n=744 15% ▼
T26% 57.8%±3.1 n=641 25%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide38% 57.9%±2.7 n=860 37%
Body22% 59.1%±3.5 n=503 7% ▼
T40% 59.6%±2.6 n=923 56% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.38 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: −2.5±2.7 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. (1,503 repeats, 3,145 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 256 51% +7.2±4.9
1stAd courtT 531 38% +2.4±3.4
1stAd courtWide 605 34% −0.2±3.1
1stDeuce courtBody 339 48% +5.3±4.3
1stDeuce courtT 514 29% −3.3±3.2
1stDeuce courtWide 646 39% +5.4±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 328 55% −0.4±4.3
2ndAd courtT 237 57% +1.7±5.0
2ndAd courtWide 369 57% +3.4±4.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 514 56% +2.0±3.5
2ndDeuce courtT 211 62% +5.7±5.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 285 57% +3.4±4.6

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Iva Jovic'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 3.1% · won 61% · −0.6±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 59% · −3.2±6.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 57% · −4.5±7.2 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 56% · −5.5±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 55% · −7.0±6.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 61% · +14.6±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 57% · +10.6±5.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.0% · won 59% · +12.3±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 56% · +9.4±6.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 55% · +7.9±5.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 58% · +9.1±7.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 56% · +7.1±6.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 60% · +10.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 59% · +10.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 57% · +8.2±7.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +12.8±10.3 vs own baseline · +14.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 57% · +7.4±7.9 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elisabetta Cocciaretto (4/6), Magda Linette (6/8)
  3. T serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 64% · +14.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +38.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line → BH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 61% · +11.7±11.6 vs own baseline · +12.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Body serve → BH down the line return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 62% · +12.2±11.8 vs own baseline · +29.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 55% · +5.6±7.6 vs own baseline · +3.0 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 · deuce court+2.8603
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.8200
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.3193
FH to their backhand · return+2.3342
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.1362

Most exposed to

FH slice to the middle · rally−1.3148
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.2927
BH to their forehand · rally−1.2555
BH slice to the middle · rally−1.0245
FH to the middle · return−1.0910

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.57, Caroline Wozniacki +1.86, Tatjana Maria +1.81, Daria Kasatkina +1.41, Maja Chwalinska +1.30

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.20, Angelique Kerber +2.02, Marie Bouzkova +1.87, Elina Avanesyan +1.68, Katie Volynets +1.57

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Belinda Bencic, Tatjana Maria, Mirra Andreeva, Elina Svitolina, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle33%
Deep returns36%
Wide serves · deuce45%
Forehand share55%
Point-ending shots26.1%
Unforced errors / shot11.2%
T serves · ad40%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
FH down the line28%
Backhand slice9%
Avg rally length3.9
Wide serves · ad38%
1st serve in60%
Chipped returns6%
Run-around forehands4%
Points at net4%
Drop shots / shot0.6%
T serves · deuce26%

Plays most like

  1. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v
  4. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  7. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches