RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2013–2020

Johanna Konta

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.3% ±2.8 raw 62.7% · tour 56.3% · 1,394 points
Return points won 45.3% ±2.9 raw 41.1% · tour 43.7% · 1,470 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 +0.21 ±0.10 better than 87% of WTA · raw +0.21
Shot selection −0.13 ±0.17 better than 34% of WTA · raw −0.14
Execution +0.43 ±0.58 better than 77% of WTA · raw +0.36
Tactical adaptability −0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.47 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 68% 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 6,682 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Johanna Konta 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 · 375 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 54.3%±6.9 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 57.2%±8.3 52.2%
BH crosscourt 15% 46.3%±9.4 50.9%
BH through the middle 14% 37.3%±9.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 13% 42.0%±9.9 45.8%
BH down the line 4% 47.1%±14.1 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 307 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 50.2%±6.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 24% 46.4%±8.6 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 41.7%±9.1 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 31.9%±13.1 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 285 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 48.9%±7.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 43.7%±8.2 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 53.0%±10.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 9% 33.8%±11.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 37.1%±12.9 40.4%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 240 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 65.1%±8.0 54.0%
BH crosscourt 21% 61.3%±9.5 52.5%
FH down the line 16% 44.2%±10.7 53.3%
FH through the middle 13% 39.4%±11.3 45.5%
BH through the middle 13% 52.5%±11.6 46.3%
BH down the line 4% 50.6%±15.0 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Johanna Konta's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 130 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 47% 71% / 66%
Body 12% 14% 62% / 57%
T 41% 39% 72% / 68%

685 normal · 36 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 57% 70% / 66%
Body 11% 12% 53% / 56%
T 35% 31% 69% / 64%

577 normal · 94 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
Wide47% 66.3%±4.0 n=341 62% ▲
Body12% 63.1%±7.4 n=84 0% ▼
T41% 64.6%±4.4 n=296 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide55% 60.4%±4.0 n=367 53% ▼
Body11% 55.1%±8.0 n=75 0% ▼
T34% 61.6%±5.0 n=229 47% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.66 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±4.6 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. (527 repeats, 829 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 88 41% −3.1±7.4
1stAd courtT 161 35% −0.6±5.7
1stAd courtWide 196 37% +2.4±5.3
1stDeuce courtBody 107 41% −1.2±6.9
1stDeuce courtT 199 29% −3.5±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 179 33% −1.4±5.3
2ndAd courtBody 124 56% +0.5±6.6
2ndAd courtT 23 48% −6.9±11.3
2ndAd courtWide 111 49% −4.6±6.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 140 54% −0.7±6.3
2ndDeuce courtT 76 53% −3.4±8.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 58 56% +2.1±8.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 73% · +5.1±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 71% · +3.6±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 68% · +0.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 67% · −0.1±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 65% · −2.5±9.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 3.1% · won 57% · +11.9±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 56% · +11.3±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 55% · +10.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 55% · +10.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 54% · +9.0±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.8% · won 57% · +8.1±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 54% · +5.8±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 54% · +5.4±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 9.4% · won 51% · +2.5±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 53% · +4.5±11.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Johanna Konta 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, mid → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 68% · +18.3±10.3 vs own baseline · +25.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (6/8), Daria Kasatkina (9/9)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · +7.9±8.2 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Varvara Flink (3/7), Eugenie Bouchard (8/14)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 60% · +10.2±10.0 vs own baseline · +12.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Donna Vekic (4/6), Garbine Muguruza (6/9)
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 59% · +9.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +23.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 57% · +6.8±11.3 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (3/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 54% · +4.5±10.9 vs own baseline · +2.8 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

T 1st serve · ad court+2.5229
FH to their forehand · return+2.5149
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.6137
FH to their forehand · return +1+1.5136
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.3341

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.7202
FH to the middle · return−2.6263
BH to the middle · return−1.8323
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.1276
BH to their backhand · serve +1−1.1123

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad55%
Point-ending shots31.4%
Deep returns38%
Drop shots / shot2.5%
1st serve in66%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Unforced errors / shot12.3%
T serves · deuce41%
Chipped returns14%
Points at net8%
Forehand share54%
Backhand slice14%
Serve & volley0%
FH down the line28%
T serves · ad34%
Through the middle27%
Run-around forehands4%
BH down the line17%
Avg rally length3.7

Plays most like

  1. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v
  3. Aliaksandra Sasnovich 2015–2025 plan v
  4. Sofia Kenin 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Anna Kalinskaya 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Aryna Sabalenka 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Olivia Gadecki 2023–2026 plan v
  8. Petra Kvitova 2010–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Mary Pierce 1994–2005

Charted matches