RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 23 charted matches · 2009–2020

Julia Goerges

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.9% ±2.7 raw 62.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,631 points
Return points won 44.5% ±2.8 raw 42.6% · tour 43.7% · 1,678 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 ±0.09 better than 89% of WTA · raw +0.23
Shot selection +0.79 ±0.14 better than 99% of WTA · raw +0.79
Execution −0.84 ±0.54 better than 22% of WTA · raw −0.87
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 22 matches
Adaptation speed +0.12 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.33 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 84% 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 7,047 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Julia Goerges 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 · 395 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 45.9%±6.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 40.4%±7.6 43.3%
BH down the line 21% 44.9%±8.1 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 38.1%±13.1 40.4%
FH inside-out 3% 50.0%±14.3 52.5%
FH inside-in 3% 53.5%±14.5 55.6%
BH slice through the middle 3% 38.3%±14.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 300 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 46.5%±6.2 46.7%
FH down the line 26% 52.5%±8.3 44.9%
FH through the middle 10% 42.5%±11.5 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 5% 23.1%±11.9 29.2%
FH down the line + approach 4% 64.8%±14.1 65.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 292 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 58.5%±7.8 52.7%
FH down the line 27% 50.5%±8.3 52.2%
BH through the middle 12% 52.3%±11.2 46.2%
FH through the middle 9% 45.0%±11.9 45.8%
BH crosscourt 7% 38.9%±12.8 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 47.4%±13.3 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 5% 63.9%±13.6 68.6%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 263 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 30% 54.7%±8.3 47.8%
BH through the middle 29% 46.5%±8.4 43.0%
BH down the line 22% 42.6%±9.2 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 6% 36.9%±13.0 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 40.9%±13.9 39.6%
FH inside-in 4% 47.1%±15.0 55.6%
BH down the line + approach 4% 69.7%±13.8 64.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Julia Goerges's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 161 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 38% ▼ 70% / 66%
Body 16% 22% 56% / 57%
T 36% 41% 72% / 68%

809 normal · 37 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 38% 72% / 66%
Body 14% 13% 54% / 56%
T 47% 49% 71% / 64%

661 normal · 124 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% 64.2%±3.8 n=398 62% ▲
Body16% 54.8%±6.3 n=138 1% ▼
T37% 62.3%±4.3 n=310 37%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.06).
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide38% 66.0%±4.3 n=302 54% ▲
Body14% 55.3%±6.9 n=110 0% ▼
T48% 62.3%±4.0 n=373 46% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.037): serve wide more. Gap 3.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.13 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: +3.4±4.2 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. (523 repeats, 1,062 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 138 47% +2.6±6.3
1stAd courtT 152 43% +7.1±6.0
1stAd courtWide 208 30% −4.1±4.9
1stDeuce courtBody 147 41% −1.5±6.1
1stDeuce courtT 230 29% −3.4±4.6
1stDeuce courtWide 177 34% −0.1±5.4
2ndAd courtBody 148 68% +13.2±5.7
2ndAd courtT 44 62% +6.5±9.3
2ndAd courtWide 114 45% −8.4±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 163 48% −6.6±5.9
2ndDeuce courtT 106 51% −4.7±7.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 45 50% −4.3±9.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.1% · won 73% · +7.4±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 65% · −0.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 63% · −3.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 62% · −3.9±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 62% · −4.1±9.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.6% · won 59% · +17.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 56% · +14.5±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.1% · won 53% · +11.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.0% · won 50% · +8.2±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, deep used 2.1% · won 47% · +5.3±11.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 9.6% · won 55% · +4.1±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.3% · won 56% · +4.9±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 55% · +3.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 53% · +2.6±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 52% · +0.9±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 59% · +9.1±10.0 vs own baseline · +17.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Agnieszka Radwanska (3/7), Caroline Wozniacki (8/12)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 58% · +7.4±11.2 vs own baseline · +10.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 57% · +6.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +8.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (3/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 58% · +7.9±12.3 vs own baseline · +15.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 52% · +1.7±11.1 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (4/8), Lesia Tsurenko (4/6)
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +1.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.9 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

Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.7151
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.2265
T 1st serve · ad court+1.3352
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.2240
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.1142

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−2.4141
FH to their backhand · return−2.0122
FH to their forehand · rally−1.1236
BH to the middle · rally−0.9153
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.6146

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

Point-ending shots37.6%
Unforced errors / shot15.4%
FH down the line38%
BH down the line28%
Run-around forehands15%
Forehand share58%
T serves · ad48%
Points at net11%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Drop shots / shot2.1%
Deep returns35%
T serves · deuce37%
Chipped returns10%
Serve & volley0%
Wide serves · ad38%
Backhand slice8%
1st serve in58%
Avg rally length3.3
Through the middle21%

Plays most like

  1. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v
  2. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v
  3. Alycia Parks 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Dayana Yastremska 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  6. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  7. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  8. Amanda Anisimova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Mary Pierce 1994–2005
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches