RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 1990–2002

Jennifer Capriati

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.4% ±3.2 raw 54.7% · tour 56.3% · 892 points
Return points won 45.7% ±3.3 raw 44.0% · tour 43.7% · 878 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 −0.23 ±0.16 better than 14% of WTA · raw −0.24
Shot selection +0.02 ±0.08 better than 47% of WTA · raw ±0.00
Execution +0.09 ±0.84 better than 65% of WTA · raw −0.05
Tactical adaptability +0.11 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed −0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.76 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 26% 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 4,973 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jennifer Capriati 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 · 380 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 52.9%±6.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 43.6%±7.4 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 53.8%±8.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.1%±12.6 34.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 33.4%±13.9 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 43.6%±14.9 40.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 279 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 41.8%±6.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 32.9%±7.9 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 51.3%±9.3 44.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 237 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 36% 44.9%±7.9 42.7%
BH crosscourt 36% 47.7%±8.0 47.9%
BH down the line 12% 44.5%±11.8 46.7%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 42.1%±13.7 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 6% 30.5%±12.8 33.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 183 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 47.6%±7.9 47.0%
FH through the middle 28% 35.6%±9.3 41.5%
FH down the line 24% 37.9%±10.0 46.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Jennifer Capriati's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 97 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 50% 64% / 66%
Body 25% 35% ▲ 55% / 57%
T 25% 15% ▼ 63% / 68%

411 normal · 20 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 23% 26% 59% / 66%
Body 37% 42% 56% / 56%
T 40% 32% 69% / 64%

327 normal · 77 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
Wide50% 59.9%±5.2 n=214 65% ▲
Body26% 49.8%±7.0 n=110 10% ▼
T25% 46.3%±7.0 n=107 25%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve wide more. Gap 5.9 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide24% 50.8%±7.3 n=96 24%
Body38% 54.3%±6.1 n=153 23% ▼
T38% 59.2%±5.9 n=155 53% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.21).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.83 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: +0.2±5.9 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. (299 repeats, 516 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 57 40% −3.5±8.7
1stAd courtT 95 37% +1.0±7.1
1stAd courtWide 108 33% −1.6±6.6
1stDeuce courtBody 62 41% −1.5±8.4
1stDeuce courtT 95 34% +2.0±7.0
1stDeuce courtWide 133 37% +2.9±6.2
2ndAd courtBody 36 55% +0.3±10.1
2ndAd courtT 42 55% −0.2±9.6
2ndAd courtWide 59 63% +9.5±8.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 50 59% +4.7±9.0
2ndDeuce courtT 31 55% −0.6±10.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 55 55% +1.7±8.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 5.5% · won 55% · −2.9±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · −5.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · −5.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 5.1% · won 54% · −4.3±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 4.0% · won 52% · −6.5±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.0% · won 47% · +6.7±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 5.4% · won 45% · +5.3±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 8.9% · won 43% · +2.7±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 41% · +1.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.2% · won 39% · −0.6±10.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 57% · +11.3±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 51% · +5.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 53% · +6.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 51% · +5.2±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.9% · won 48% · +2.3±7.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 54% · +8.0±10.1 vs own baseline · +8.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kim Clijsters (4/9), Martina Hingis (15/20)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 54% · +8.2±10.4 vs own baseline · +10.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kim Clijsters (8/17), Martina Hingis (7/12)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +10.4±12.9 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kim Clijsters (5/8), Martina Hingis (5/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.8% · won 52% · +6.4±12.3 vs own baseline · +11.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Martina Hingis (7/10)
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 51% · +5.3±12.7 vs own baseline · +16.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Martina Hingis (4/8)
  6. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 50% · +4.2±11.5 vs own baseline · +6.0 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 1st serve · ad court+1.6153
T 1st serve · ad court+0.9155
FH to the middle · return+0.5178
BH to the middle · return+0.5195
BH to their forehand · rally−0.1205

Most exposed to

BH slice to their backhand · rally−4.2166
FH to their backhand · return−1.9157
FH to the middle · rally−1.9132
T 1st serve · ad court−0.4152
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.1193

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Daria Kasatkina, Tatjana Maria, Karolina Muchova, Yulia Putintseva, Petra Martic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.9
Wide serves · deuce50%
1st serve in65%
Through the middle30%
BH down the line22%
T serves · ad38%
Serve & volley0%
Points at net7%
Run-around forehands6%
Backhand slice11%
FH down the line26%
Unforced errors / shot9.1%
Drop shots / shot0.7%
Chipped returns2%
Point-ending shots17.5%
T serves · deuce25%
Wide serves · ad24%
Deep returns23%
Forehand share45%

Plays most like

  1. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013 plan v
  2. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006 plan v
  4. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  5. Sloane Stephens 2013–2026 plan v
  6. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  7. Carla Suarez Navarro 2009–2021 plan v
  8. Agnieszka Radwanska 2007–2018 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026
  2. Sloane Stephens 2013–2026
  3. Alize Cornet 2013–2024

Charted matches