RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 57 charted matches · 1999–2010

Justine Henin

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.6% ±2.5 raw 59.1% · tour 56.3% · 4,069 points
Return points won 48.2% ±2.6 raw 45.7% · tour 43.7% · 4,059 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 ±0.00 ±0.06 better than 53% of WTA · raw ±0.00
Shot selection −0.24 ±0.13 better than 25% of WTA · raw −0.25
Execution −0.17 ±0.28 better than 54% of WTA · raw −0.26
Tactical adaptability +0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 54 matches
Adaptation speed +0.11 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.89 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 16% 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 21,731 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Justine Henin 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 · 1,410 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 26% 47.9%±4.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 46.0%±4.2 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 44.2%±5.1 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 16% 42.9%±5.3 34.4%
BH down the line 10% 49.0%±6.4 46.8%
BH slice down the line 2% 33.4%±11.1 31.7%
FH inside-out 1% 47.6%±12.8 52.5%
FH inside-in 1% 63.2%±13.4 55.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,278 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 48.9%±3.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 30% 47.8%±4.1 41.3%
FH down the line 22% 39.3%±4.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 35.9%±9.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 36.4%±11.8 31.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 27.2%±11.6 24.3%
FH down the line + approach 1% 61.3%±13.4 65.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,120 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 22% 54.8%±5.0 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 46.6%±5.2 52.2%
FH through the middle 19% 47.4%±5.4 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 47.3%±6.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 7% 53.6%±8.2 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 51.1%±8.8 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 3% 67.3%±10.3 68.6%
BH slice through the middle 3% 50.9%±11.5 44.8%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 689 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 49.6%±6.0 54.0%
FH through the middle 18% 45.1%±6.9 45.5%
BH through the middle 15% 52.6%±7.3 46.3%
FH down the line 15% 57.9%±7.4 53.3%
BH crosscourt 12% 58.5%±8.1 52.5%
BH down the line 6% 53.7%±10.6 51.0%
FH down the line + approach 4% 69.6%±11.3 71.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 78.8%±11.2 71.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Justine Henin's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 421 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 47% 70% / 66%
Body 11% 10% 62% / 57%
T 45% 43% 69% / 68%

1,982 normal · 90 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 17% 14% 68% / 66%
Body 12% 11% 61% / 56%
T 71% 76% 67% / 64%

1,605 normal · 331 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
Wide44% 61.9%±2.6 n=909 59% ▲
Body11% 57.7%±5.1 n=224 0% ▼
T45% 57.4%±2.6 n=939 41% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide17% 59.9%±4.3 n=321 32% ▲
Body11% 58.6%±5.1 n=221 0% ▼
T72% 58.1%±2.2 n=1,394 68% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.81).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.56 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: +0.3±2.9 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. (1,814 repeats, 2,080 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 203 47% +3.0±5.4
1stAd courtT 495 40% +4.0±3.5
1stAd courtWide 455 43% +8.9±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 185 45% +1.9±5.6
1stDeuce courtT 421 35% +3.3±3.7
1stDeuce courtWide 695 38% +3.9±3.0
2ndAd courtBody 264 53% −2.1±4.8
2ndAd courtT 202 55% +0.4±5.4
2ndAd courtWide 298 58% +4.1±4.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 244 52% −2.9±5.0
2ndDeuce courtT 240 55% −0.9±5.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 296 55% +0.9±4.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 61% · −3.5±7.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 60% · −4.1±7.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 60% · −4.5±6.9 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −6.2±7.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 56% · −8.4±7.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.0% · won 58% · +12.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.2% · won 55% · +9.3±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.5% · won 53% · +7.9±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 52% · +6.9±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.1% · won 50% · +4.9±5.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 58% · +10.7±7.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 59% · +11.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 53% · +5.4±5.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 55% · +7.6±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 53% · +5.3±7.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 57% · +7.9±8.4 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (4/8), Kim Clijsters (4/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 63% · +13.5±11.8 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +6.3±9.0 vs own baseline · +7.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lindsay Davenport (5/8), Tsvetana Pironkova (5/7)
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH through the middle used 0.2% · won 59% · +9.2±11.5 vs own baseline · +25.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH slice through the middle → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 60% · +10.4±12.2 vs own baseline · +30.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kim Clijsters (5/6)
  6. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 58% · +8.7±11.8 vs own baseline · +20.2 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 slice to their backhand · return+3.7129
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.5451
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.1247
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.8333
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.8427

Most exposed to

Body 2nd serve · ad court−2.1264
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.9244
FH to the middle · return +1−1.9230
Body 1st serve · deuce court−1.1251
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−0.7296

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Magda Linette, Emma Navarro, Mirra Andreeva, Jessica Pegula, Ons Jabeur

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad72%
T serves · deuce45%
Points at net12%
Backhand slice31%
Chipped returns21%
Through the middle32%
Serve & volley4%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Forehand share55%
Avg rally length4.2
FH down the line29%
Point-ending shots23.2%
BH down the line19%
Run-around forehands5%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
Unforced errors / shot9.1%
Deep returns28%
1st serve in54%
Wide serves · ad17%

Plays most like

  1. Paula Badosa 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Anna Bondar 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Alison Van Uytvanck 2015–2022 plan v
  4. Jennifer Brady 2016–2023 plan v
  5. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
  6. Heather Watson 2014–2024 plan v
  7. Qiang Wang 2012–2024 plan v
  8. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Paula Badosa 2015–2026
  2. Anna Bondar 2017–2026
  3. Jennifer Brady 2016–2023

Charted matches