RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 29 charted matches · 2015–2026

Katerina Siniakova

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.4% ±2.8 raw 53.5% · tour 56.3% · 2,022 points
Return points won 44.3% ±2.8 raw 41.5% · tour 43.7% · 2,045 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 +0.04 ±0.09 better than 63% of WTA · raw +0.04
Shot selection −0.18 ±0.14 better than 30% of WTA · raw −0.18
Execution −0.21 ±0.48 better than 48% of WTA · raw −0.24
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 29 matches
Adaptation speed +0.14 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.42 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 72% 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 11,259 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Katerina Siniakova 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 · 680 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 44.7%±6.1 52.7%
BH crosscourt 16% 49.8%±7.2 50.9%
FH down the line 16% 56.7%±7.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 14% 45.8%±7.6 45.8%
BH down the line 12% 52.5%±8.3 50.0%
BH through the middle 11% 52.3%±8.4 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 2% 41.8%±14.6 44.8%
FH slice through the middle 1% 47.4%±15.0 41.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 648 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 47.1%±4.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 42.3%±6.1 41.3%
FH down the line 24% 46.8%±6.2 44.9%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 41.8%±10.8 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 35.2%±11.7 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 643 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 51.1%±4.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 21% 49.5%±6.6 43.3%
BH down the line 21% 52.9%±6.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 35.2%±11.3 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 36.6%±11.9 40.4%
BH slice down the line 3% 31.6%±12.3 31.7%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 365 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH down the line 20% 48.0%±8.6 51.0%
BH crosscourt 19% 46.1%±8.6 52.5%
BH through the middle 19% 43.5%±8.7 46.3%
FH crosscourt 16% 53.0%±9.4 54.0%
FH down the line 13% 46.6%±10.0 53.3%
FH through the middle 12% 43.9%±10.2 45.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Katerina Siniakova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 259 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 44% ▲ 59% / 66%
Body 24% 21% 55% / 57%
T 42% 35% 59% / 68%

995 normal · 62 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 24% 17% 60% / 66%
Body 28% 38% ▲ 60% / 56%
T 48% 46% 63% / 64%

768 normal · 197 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
Wide35% 54.2%±4.1 n=368 50% ▲
Body23% 50.0%±4.9 n=247 8% ▼
T42% 50.7%±3.8 n=442 42%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide23% 53.5%±5.2 n=219 23%
Body30% 54.6%±4.6 n=291 15% ▼
T47% 57.0%±3.7 n=455 62% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.58).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.44 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: −0.5±3.7 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. (694 repeats, 1,270 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 114 42% −2.1±6.8
1stAd courtT 320 42% +6.4±4.3
1stAd courtWide 224 31% −3.2±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 134 44% +1.8±6.4
1stDeuce courtT 208 31% −1.2±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 360 32% −1.7±3.9
2ndAd courtBody 154 54% −1.0±6.0
2ndAd courtT 66 57% +1.7±8.3
2ndAd courtWide 106 54% +0.2±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 172 49% −5.8±5.8
2ndDeuce courtT 86 58% +2.4±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 97 48% −5.6±7.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.8% · won 58% · +0.6±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 58% · +0.2±8.9 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 57% · −0.1±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.5% · won 57% · −0.1±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 56% · −1.3±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 55% · +12.7±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 53% · +10.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 51% · +8.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 49% · +6.5±8.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 50% · +7.0±9.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 58% · +8.7±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 54% · +4.5±7.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH down the line used 3.1% · won 55% · +5.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 54% · +4.1±7.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 53% · +4.0±7.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 55% · +6.7±7.7 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kateryna Baindl (3/10), Caroline Wozniacki (2/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · +5.8±7.0 vs own baseline · +7.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Karolina Schmiedlova (6/15), Jessica Pegula (3/6)
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.4% · won 59% · +11.0±11.5 vs own baseline · +19.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 55% · +6.5±10.2 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 55% · +6.9±11.7 vs own baseline · +16.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.9% · won 53% · +4.3±9.3 vs own baseline · +10.8 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 backhand · return+2.5341
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.3243
BH to their backhand · rally+1.6668
BH to their forehand · return+1.6122
BH to the middle · rally+1.5334

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−3.1489
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.9196
BH to their backhand · return−1.9216
BH to the middle · rally−1.8414
Body 2nd serve · ad court−1.5154

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.20, Caroline Wozniacki +2.93, Daria Kasatkina +2.36, Sara Errani +2.25, Angelique Kerber +2.11

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.97, Marie Bouzkova +1.69, Angelique Kerber +1.62, Elina Avanesyan +1.34, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.26

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line26%
T serves · ad47%
Deep returns36%
T serves · deuce42%
Avg rally length4.4
Chipped returns17%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
1st serve in64%
Points at net8%
FH down the line30%
Serve & volley1%
Point-ending shots23.9%
Through the middle27%
Backhand slice9%
Forehand share51%
Wide serves · deuce35%
Run-around forehands1%
Wide serves · ad23%

Plays most like

  1. Ashlyn Krueger 2023–2026 plan v
  2. Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
  3. R – plan v
  4. Qiang Wang 2012–2024 plan v
  5. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Tsvetana Pironkova 2007–2021 plan v
  7. Jaqueline Cristian 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches