RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 52 charted matches · 2016–2026

Jasmine Paolini

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.3% ±2.5 raw 57.6% · tour 56.3% · 3,696 points
Return points won 48.1% ±2.6 raw 44.8% · tour 43.7% · 3,667 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 −0.08 ±0.06 better than 39% of WTA · raw −0.08
Shot selection +0.57 ±0.09 better than 96% of WTA · raw +0.56
Execution +0.55 ±0.36 better than 81% of WTA · raw +0.53
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 52 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.60 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 53% 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 18,727 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jasmine Paolini 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 · 1,263 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 46.7%±3.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 45.0%±4.1 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 49.6%±6.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 5% 32.0%±8.4 34.4%
FH inside-out 3% 44.2%±10.5 52.5%
FH inside-in 3% 65.0%±10.7 55.6%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 42.2%±11.5 40.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 28.7%±12.4 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,093 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 54.8%±4.9 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 55.9%±5.0 52.2%
FH through the middle 19% 50.5%±5.5 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 41.8%±6.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 56.2%±7.1 50.9%
BH down the line 4% 42.0%±9.8 50.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 81.7%±9.6 69.7%
FH down the line + approach 2% 60.3%±12.6 68.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 955 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 46.2%±3.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 41.4%±4.9 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 48.4%±5.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 31.5%±9.6 29.2%
FH down the line + approach 2% 68.8%±12.9 65.4%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 30.6%±13.0 31.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 22.9%±12.6 24.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 632 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 53.3%±6.4 54.0%
FH down the line 22% 56.2%±6.5 53.3%
FH through the middle 21% 48.1%±6.7 45.5%
BH through the middle 16% 48.6%±7.4 46.3%
BH crosscourt 10% 59.9%±9.0 52.5%
BH down the line 3% 50.5%±13.0 51.0%
FH down the line + approach 3% 73.1%±12.2 71.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 78.1%±11.5 71.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Jasmine Paolini's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 405 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 33% 39% 64% / 66%
Body 28% 19% ▼ 57% / 57%
T 39% 42% 62% / 68%

1,828 normal · 93 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 41% 63% / 66%
Body 21% 17% 57% / 56%
T 38% 42% 68% / 64%

1,445 normal · 312 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% 59.2%±3.1 n=640 48% ▲
Body28% 54.8%±3.5 n=530 12% ▼
T39% 56.2%±2.9 n=751 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.22).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 57.3%±3.0 n=722 42%
Body21% 57.6%±4.1 n=362 5% ▼
T38% 60.8%±3.0 n=673 53% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.31).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: −1.0±2.9 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. (1,275 repeats, 2,299 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 205 46% +2.6±5.4
1stAd courtT 436 43% +7.1±3.8
1stAd courtWide 475 40% +5.4±3.6
1stDeuce courtBody 299 45% +2.0±4.5
1stDeuce courtT 417 33% +0.9±3.7
1stDeuce courtWide 506 35% +0.7±3.4
2ndAd courtBody 245 53% −2.1±5.0
2ndAd courtT 122 50% −4.7±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 259 54% +0.8±4.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 333 55% +0.2±4.3
2ndDeuce courtT 217 59% +2.6±5.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 129 54% +0.4±6.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 63% · +3.6±7.0 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 61% · +1.6±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 57% · −2.8±7.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 54% · −5.7±7.2 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 54% · −5.2±6.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.5% · won 57% · +10.0±6.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 56% · +9.0±6.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 57% · +10.3±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 55% · +8.3±7.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 56% · +8.7±8.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · +10.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 55% · +5.8±5.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.1% · won 54% · +5.1±5.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 52% · +3.3±5.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 53% · +3.8±6.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 63% · +14.1±10.1 vs own baseline · +22.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 58% · +8.3±8.0 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iva Jovic (4/6)
  3. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH down the line used 0.3% · won 63% · +13.6±10.9 vs own baseline · +23.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → FH down the line return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 66% · +16.6±11.9 vs own baseline · +40.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 63% · +13.3±11.3 vs own baseline · +24.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 61% · +11.6±10.5 vs own baseline · +15.1 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 backhand · return+3.1441
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+3.1337
FH to their forehand · return+2.7390
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.6148
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.6246

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−3.4326
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.3566
T 2nd serve · ad court−1.9122
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.6259
BH to the middle · return−1.5934

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.54, Caroline Wozniacki +2.47, Angelique Kerber +1.93, Daria Kasatkina +1.91, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.67

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.76, Angelique Kerber +2.46, Marie Bouzkova +2.33, Elina Avanesyan +2.12, Katie Volynets +2.04

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.

1st serve in68%
Through the middle33%
Deep returns36%
Run-around forehands11%
Forehand share56%
T serves · deuce39%
Point-ending shots25.1%
T serves · ad38%
Points at net7%
Wide serves · ad41%
Avg rally length4.1
Serve & volley0%
Unforced errors / shot10.3%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
FH down the line28%
Backhand slice9%
Chipped returns6%
Wide serves · deuce33%
BH down the line15%

Plays most like

  1. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Andrea Petkovic 2010–2022 plan v
  3. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  4. Maya Joint 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Nadia Podoroska 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Dominika Cibulkova 2009–2019 plan v
  8. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches