RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 53 charted matches · 2014–2026

Jelena Ostapenko

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.8% ±2.6 raw 55.1% · tour 56.3% · 3,651 points
Return points won 46.5% ±2.6 raw 43.8% · tour 43.7% · 3,647 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 +0.43 ±0.05 better than 98% of WTA · raw +0.43
Shot selection +0.12 ±0.09 better than 58% of WTA · raw +0.12
Execution −1.29 ±0.51 better than 14% of WTA · raw −1.31
Tactical adaptability +0.29 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 49 matches
Adaptation speed +0.18 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 1.88 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 100% 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 15,499 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jelena Ostapenko 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 · 760 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 55.0%±4.6 52.7%
BH crosscourt 21% 55.7%±6.1 50.9%
FH down the line 17% 57.7%±6.7 52.2%
BH through the middle 10% 55.3%±8.3 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 51.3%±9.3 50.0%
FH through the middle 6% 45.8%±9.9 45.8%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 602 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 56.4%±5.0 52.3%
BH crosscourt 20% 55.5%±6.9 50.8%
FH down the line 13% 53.2%±8.3 53.0%
BH down the line 9% 54.1%±9.4 50.6%
BH through the middle 9% 49.0%±9.6 46.2%
FH through the middle 8% 46.9%±9.7 46.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 577 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 51.0%±4.6 46.7%
FH down the line 32% 51.7%±5.8 44.9%
FH through the middle 11% 37.7%±8.7 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 2% 20.7%±11.6 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 560 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 50.4%±5.0 47.6%
BH down the line 32% 45.7%±5.8 46.8%
BH through the middle 19% 48.1%±7.4 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 33.6%±13.5 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 2% 38.3%±14.4 34.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Jelena Ostapenko's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 444 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 27% 65% / 66%
Body 13% 14% 56% / 57%
T 55% 59% 68% / 68%

1,788 normal · 113 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 34% 67% / 66%
Body 19% 19% 58% / 56%
T 44% 47% 64% / 64%

1,413 normal · 331 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
Wide31% 52.5%±3.3 n=597 29% ▼
Body13% 49.0%±4.9 n=248 0% ▼
T56% 56.5%±2.5 n=1,056 71% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.028): serve T more. Gap 2.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide36% 57.5%±3.2 n=628 51% ▲
Body19% 55.6%±4.3 n=333 4% ▼
T45% 54.9%±2.9 n=783 45%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.58).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.55 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: +0.5±3.9 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. (1,165 repeats, 2,374 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 233 48% +4.5±5.1
1stAd courtT 423 36% +0.8±3.7
1stAd courtWide 422 35% +1.0±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 278 40% −2.4±4.6
1stDeuce courtT 429 30% −2.4±3.5
1stDeuce courtWide 443 34% −0.4±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 257 57% +2.3±4.8
2ndAd courtT 121 54% −1.1±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 299 56% +2.7±4.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 366 58% +4.0±4.1
2ndDeuce courtT 224 54% −1.8±5.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 141 51% −2.8±6.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 64% · +2.9±7.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 60% · −0.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 59% · −1.7±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 57% · −4.1±7.8 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 56% · −4.7±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 59% · +14.1±6.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.2% · won 58% · +13.5±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 57% · +12.1±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 56% · +11.8±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.3% · won 54% · +9.5±8.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 61% · +9.6±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 56% · +4.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 59% · +7.6±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 56% · +4.7±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 56% · +4.2±9.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Jelena Ostapenko 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 0.5% · won 63% · +12.4±10.4 vs own baseline · +19.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 59% · +8.4±9.9 vs own baseline · +15.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +10.7±11.9 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +7.1±10.1 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (4/8)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 56% · +4.8±8.5 vs own baseline · +5.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Kasatkina (3/7), Garbine Muguruza (4/6)
  6. Wide serve → FH crosscourt return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +7.1±11.2 vs own baseline · +15.2 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 · rally+2.9559
FH to their forehand · return+1.5510
Body 2nd serve · ad court+0.8262
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+0.7279
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.2628

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−7.2287
T 1st serve · ad court−2.1655
FH to their forehand · return−2.0365
BH to their backhand · return−1.7553
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.1685

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.16, Caroline Wozniacki +1.83, Tatjana Maria +1.69, Daria Kasatkina +1.31, Sara Errani +1.11

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.11, Angelique Kerber +0.37, Elina Avanesyan +0.34, Marie Bouzkova +0.15, Katie Volynets +0.05

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.

Point-ending shots42.3%
Unforced errors / shot17.1%
T serves · deuce56%
BH down the line28%
Deep returns37%
T serves · ad45%
FH down the line30%
Chipped returns10%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Forehand share52%
Run-around forehands4%
Wide serves · ad36%
Backhand slice5%
Points at net4%
1st serve in57%
Wide serves · deuce31%
Avg rally length3.0
Through the middle17%

Plays most like

  1. Talia Gibson 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Ana Konjuh 2014–2022 plan v
  3. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Petra Kvitova 2010–2025 plan v
  5. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  7. Julia Goerges 2009–2020 plan v
  8. Viktoria Hruncakova 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches