RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2016–2023

Jennifer Brady

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.1% ±3.1 raw 60.6% · tour 56.3% · 1,351 points
Return points won 44.6% ±3.3 raw 40.5% · tour 43.7% · 1,277 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 −0.09 ±0.08 better than 38% of WTA · raw −0.10
Shot selection +0.17 ±0.13 better than 62% of WTA · raw +0.15
Execution +0.48 ±0.65 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.35
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.74 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 28% 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 6,858 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jennifer Brady 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 · 505 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 48.5%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 40.5%±6.4 43.3%
BH down the line 14% 45.4%±8.6 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 28.6%±10.3 34.4%
FH inside-out 6% 60.2%±11.5 52.5%
BH slice down the line 5% 30.5%±11.0 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 39.6%±14.0 40.4%
FH inside-in 2% 50.4%±15.0 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 345 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 54.3%±7.2 52.7%
FH down the line 23% 55.6%±8.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 22% 46.5%±8.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 10% 48.6%±11.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 8% 43.9%±12.0 50.9%
BH down the line 3% 53.1%±14.5 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 336 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 46% 43.9%±6.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 24% 40.9%±8.0 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 53.5%±9.0 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 30.6%±11.7 29.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 244 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 30% 44.2%±8.4 47.9%
BH through the middle 29% 45.0%±8.6 42.7%
BH down the line 13% 39.9%±11.3 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 12% 32.0%±11.0 33.4%
BH slice down the line 7% 40.0%±13.2 34.0%
FH inside-out 5% 54.3%±14.7 54.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Jennifer Brady's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 136 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 49% 70% / 66%
Body 12% 14% 54% / 57%
T 40% 37% 78% / 68%

670 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 36% 67% / 66%
Body 9% 11% 64% / 56%
T 51% 53% 70% / 64%

545 normal · 101 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
Wide48% 61.6%±4.2 n=339 53% ▲
Body12% 55.9%±7.6 n=87 0% ▼
T40% 63.7%±4.5 n=279 47% ▲

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

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 57.3%±4.9 n=251 33% ▼
Body9% 62.2%±8.4 n=61 0% ▼
T52% 60.7%±4.2 n=334 67% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.63 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±3.3 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. (533 repeats, 782 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 61 40% −4.1±8.4
1stAd courtT 140 34% −1.6±6.0
1stAd courtWide 174 33% −1.9±5.4
1stDeuce courtBody 93 43% +0.3±7.3
1stDeuce courtT 146 32% ±0.0±5.8
1stDeuce courtWide 162 32% −2.1±5.5
2ndAd courtBody 72 49% −6.5±8.1
2ndAd courtT 41 53% −2.2±9.7
2ndAd courtWide 125 47% −6.4±6.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 106 61% +6.1±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 111 51% −5.1±6.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 44 49% −4.9±9.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 66% · +0.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 65% · −0.6±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 63% · −2.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 63% · −2.3±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 61% · −4.2±9.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.0% · won 55% · +13.1±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 52% · +10.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 51% · +9.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.0% · won 48% · +6.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.6% · won 48% · +6.2±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 53% · +6.8±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 52% · +5.9±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 52% · +5.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.0% · won 52% · +5.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 50% · +3.5±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +7.7±11.7 vs own baseline · +5.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tamara Zidansek (6/9), Magda Linette (6/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 52% · +5.1±10.3 vs own baseline · +7.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Naomi Osaka (4/8), Tamara Zidansek (6/11)
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 53% · +6.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +14.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +4.7±12.1 vs own baseline · +3.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 52% · +4.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +9.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 50% · +3.6±11.3 vs own baseline · +6.9 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+3.1169
BH to their forehand · rally+3.1176
BH to their backhand · rally+2.4277
FH to their backhand · rally+2.3342
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+2.0127

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.2156
FH to their backhand · rally−1.5426
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.0125
FH to the middle · serve +1−0.9131
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.8187

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Coco Gauff, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Marie Bouzkova

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad52%
Run-around forehands16%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Through the middle31%
Forehand share55%
T serves · deuce40%
Deep returns33%
Backhand slice16%
Serve & volley0%
Avg rally length4.0
Wide serves · ad39%
Point-ending shots22.6%
Chipped returns7%
FH down the line27%
Points at net5%
Unforced errors / shot9.3%
BH down the line17%
Drop shots / shot0.4%
1st serve in53%

Plays most like

  1. Anna Bondar 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Louisa Chirico 2015–2017 plan v
  3. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Heather Watson 2014–2024 plan v
  6. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Paula Badosa 2015–2026 plan v
  8. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Justine Henin 1999–2010

Charted matches