RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2021–2026

Jaqueline Cristian

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.4% ±3.0 raw 54.6% · tour 56.3% · 1,426 points
Return points won 40.9% ±3.1 raw 38.4% · tour 43.7% · 1,359 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 −0.15 ±0.12 better than 25% of WTA · raw −0.15
Shot selection −0.05 ±0.12 better than 41% of WTA · raw −0.04
Execution −0.25 ±0.59 better than 46% of WTA · raw −0.23
Tactical adaptability +0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 19 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 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 7,727 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jaqueline Cristian 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 · 521 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 42.1%±5.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 32% 38.9%±5.9 43.3%
BH down the line 16% 45.9%±8.2 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.9%±11.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 23.9%±11.4 40.4%
FH inside-in 2% 63.7%±14.4 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 495 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 28% 44.9%±6.5 52.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 44.3%±7.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 20% 49.7%±7.6 45.8%
BH through the middle 13% 42.6%±8.8 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 59.3%±8.9 50.9%
BH down the line 4% 52.4%±12.7 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 445 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 47.6%±5.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 37.4%±6.8 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 40.9%±7.7 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 31.8%±10.5 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 24.7%±12.2 31.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 263 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 33% 37.9%±7.7 47.9%
BH through the middle 30% 37.5%±8.0 42.7%
BH down the line 16% 38.6%±10.1 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 10% 27.6%±10.8 33.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Jaqueline Cristian's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 177 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 26% 58% / 66%
Body 26% 20% 57% / 57%
T 41% 54% ▲ 69% / 68%

693 normal · 46 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 43% 63% / 66%
Body 22% 15% 54% / 56%
T 42% 42% 65% / 64%

555 normal · 131 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
Wide33% 55.0%±4.9 n=246 35% ▲
Body25% 52.3%±5.6 n=186 10% ▼
T42% 55.9%±4.4 n=307 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.66).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide37% 53.7%±4.9 n=255 38%
Body21% 48.8%±6.3 n=141 5% ▼
T42% 58.7%±4.5 n=290 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.05).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.71 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: +1.8±5.2 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. (482 repeats, 905 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 87 45% +0.7±7.6
1stAd courtT 160 32% −3.1±5.6
1stAd courtWide 176 26% −8.6±5.0
1stDeuce courtBody 102 42% −1.1±7.1
1stDeuce courtT 156 30% −2.2±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 190 28% −6.2±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 91 55% −0.1±7.4
2ndAd courtT 24 53% −2.2±11.2
2ndAd courtWide 109 48% −5.3±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 127 43% −11.6±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 81 59% +3.3±7.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 56 62% +8.0±8.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 2.1% · won 65% · +7.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 62% · +4.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 59% · +1.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 55% · −3.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.2% · won 53% · −4.3±9.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 3.4% · won 58% · +16.1±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 54% · +11.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 49% · +7.3±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.4% · won 46% · +3.8±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 45% · +3.1±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 50% · +7.0±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 52% · +9.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 3.0% · won 50% · +7.0±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 49% · +6.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 48% · +5.4±10.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 55% · +12.6±10.6 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jelena Ostapenko (4/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 54% · +11.5±11.5 vs own baseline · +13.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 51% · +8.3±10.1 vs own baseline · +2.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alison Riske Amritraj (3/8)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.8% · won 51% · +8.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +8.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kamilla Rakhimova (4/6)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 53% · +9.8±12.0 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.0% · won 50% · +6.8±10.1 vs own baseline · +9.8 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

FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.9192
FH to their forehand · return+1.8135
BH to the middle · return +1+1.4128
FH to the middle · return+1.3295
BH to their backhand · rally+0.8396

Most exposed to

Body 2nd serve · deuce court−3.0127
BH to their backhand · return−2.6161
BH to their backhand · rally−2.5421
FH to their forehand · return−2.3146
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.0184

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.98, Caroline Wozniacki +2.86, Daria Kasatkina +2.21, Sara Errani +2.13, Tatjana Maria +2.04

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.74, Angelique Kerber +1.54, Marie Bouzkova +1.45, Elina Avanesyan +1.16, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.03

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jasmine Paolini, Magda Linette, Naomi Osaka, Iva Jovic, Ons Jabeur

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle33%
T serves · deuce42%
Avg rally length4.4
Deep returns35%
FH down the line32%
T serves · ad42%
Forehand share54%
BH down the line21%
Chipped returns10%
Run-around forehands7%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice11%
Unforced errors / shot10.0%
Points at net6%
1st serve in60%
Wide serves · ad37%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Point-ending shots19.9%
Wide serves · deuce33%

Plays most like

  1. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Qiang Wang 2012–2024 plan v
  3. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  6. Linda Fruhvirtova 2022–2025 plan v
  7. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Dominika Cibulkova 2009–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches