RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 28 charted matches · 2017–2026

Jil Teichmann

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.8% ±2.8 raw 54.7% · tour 56.3% · 2,250 points
Return points won 44.8% ±2.9 raw 42.7% · tour 43.7% · 2,248 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 −0.19 ±0.09 better than 18% of WTA · raw −0.19
Shot selection +0.14 ±0.14 better than 60% of WTA · raw +0.14
Execution −0.19 ±0.42 better than 51% of WTA · raw −0.15
Tactical adaptability +0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 27 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.14 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 6% 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 12,838 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jil Teichmann 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 · 903 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 35% 42.3%±4.4 43.3%
BH crosscourt 30% 45.9%±4.8 47.6%
BH down the line 12% 45.1%±7.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 30.3%±7.9 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 42.3%±10.2 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 27.7%±11.5 31.7%
FH inside-in 2% 50.3%±13.7 55.6%
BH lob through the middle 2% 26.2%±12.1 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 758 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 47.4%±5.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 45.4%±6.7 45.8%
BH through the middle 15% 47.6%±7.0 46.2%
FH down the line 12% 57.7%±7.7 52.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 47.4%±7.9 50.9%
BH down the line 5% 42.9%±10.9 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 3% 47.4%±13.0 44.8%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 48.3%±13.9 49.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 714 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 48.8%±4.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 41.3%±5.7 41.3%
FH down the line 13% 37.9%±7.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 24.7%±10.7 29.2%
FH lob through the middle 2% 36.0%±13.7 29.4%
FH lob crosscourt 2% 25.7%±12.9 29.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 467 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 49.5%±6.3 47.9%
BH through the middle 28% 46.1%±6.6 42.7%
BH down the line 12% 50.5%±9.4 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 11% 33.4%±9.2 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 31.4%±11.1 38.7%
BH slice down the line 3% 28.8%±12.8 34.0%
BH lob through the middle 2% 25.4%±12.9 29.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Jil Teichmann's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 279 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 31% 23% ▼ 61% / 66%
Body 25% 20% 56% / 57%
T 44% 57% ▲ 61% / 68%

1,080 normal · 65 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 57% 64% / 66%
Body 23% 23% 57% / 56%
T 26% 20% 66% / 64%

852 normal · 214 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% 53.2%±4.2 n=351 31%
Body25% 53.1%±4.6 n=287 10% ▼
T44% 55.7%±3.5 n=507 59% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 55.8%±3.4 n=558 58% ▲
Body23% 51.5%±4.9 n=247 8% ▼
T24% 56.2%±4.8 n=261 34% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.36).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.47 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: +1.4±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. (744 repeats, 1,411 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 194 40% −3.6±5.4
1stAd courtT 274 40% +4.5±4.6
1stAd courtWide 235 35% +0.8±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 179 43% +0.8±5.6
1stDeuce courtT 230 33% +0.4±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 352 35% +1.1±4.0
2ndAd courtBody 151 54% −1.2±6.1
2ndAd courtT 126 58% +3.0±6.5
2ndAd courtWide 90 49% −4.3±7.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 174 57% +2.6±5.7
2ndDeuce courtT 49 49% −6.9±9.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 162 49% −4.7±5.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.4% · won 55% · −2.5±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 54% · −3.6±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 53% · −5.1±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.5% · won 52% · −5.3±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 52% · −5.8±9.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.3% · won 52% · +8.1±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 53% · +9.5±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 51% · +7.7±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.2% · won 52% · +8.1±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.1% · won 48% · +4.9±7.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.4% · won 52% · +5.7±5.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 53% · +7.0±6.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.0% · won 52% · +5.7±6.3 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 53% · +7.0±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 50% · +3.7±10.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 56% · +10.0±6.1 vs own baseline · +9.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Victoria Azarenka (3/7), Sara Errani (5/11)
  2. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 59% · +13.3±10.4 vs own baseline · +17.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +7.4±10.5 vs own baseline · +3.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Body serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH through the middle used 0.3% · won 56% · +9.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +27.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 56% · +10.0±12.6 vs own baseline · +17.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anastasija Sevastova (4/6)
  6. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH through the middle used 0.3% · won 56% · +10.3±12.9 vs own baseline · +27.8 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

BH to their forehand · return+3.1263
FH to their forehand · serve +1+3.1257
FH to their forehand · return +1+3.0126
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.1147
FH to their backhand · return +1+2.0306

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.8196
FH to the middle · serve +1−2.2257
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.0152
FH to the middle · return−1.8453
FH to their backhand · return−1.6245

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Caroline Wozniacki +2.66, Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.65, Angelique Kerber +2.08, Daria Kasatkina +1.99, Sara Errani +1.88

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.23, Sara Errani +2.08, Marie Bouzkova +1.83, Elina Avanesyan +1.65, Magdalena Frech +1.35

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle35%
Wide serves · ad52%
Avg rally length4.7
T serves · deuce44%
Points at net11%
Deep returns35%
Forehand share54%
Run-around forehands8%
Serve & volley2%
Backhand slice18%
Unforced errors / shot10.5%
1st serve in62%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Chipped returns6%
Point-ending shots21.3%
BH down the line16%
Wide serves · deuce31%
T serves · ad24%
FH down the line21%

Plays most like

  1. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  2. Johanna Larsson 2013–2019 plan v
  3. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 2020–2025 plan v
  5. Suzan Lamens 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Beatriz Haddad Maia 2019–2025 plan v
  8. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches