RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 21 charted matches · 2018–2025

Katie Boulter

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.8% ±3.0 raw 56.4% · tour 56.3% · 1,331 points
Return points won 44.6% ±3.0 raw 41.2% · tour 43.7% · 1,414 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 −0.15 ±0.07 better than 26% of WTA · raw −0.15
Shot selection +0.24 ±0.18 better than 72% of WTA · raw +0.23
Execution −0.88 ±0.63 better than 21% of WTA · raw −0.93
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 21 matches
Adaptation speed +0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.79 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 25% 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 6,488 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Katie Boulter 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 · 365 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 30% 55.8%±7.2 52.2%
FH crosscourt 27% 60.3%±7.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 44.5%±8.7 45.8%
BH through the middle 13% 41.5%±9.8 46.2%
BH crosscourt 6% 51.6%±12.5 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 43.9%±12.7 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 335 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 39% 38.4%±6.5 43.3%
BH crosscourt 28% 40.3%±7.6 47.6%
BH down the line 22% 44.0%±8.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.4%±12.1 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 287 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 46.0%±7.2 46.7%
FH down the line 25% 41.9%±8.4 44.9%
FH through the middle 24% 38.1%±8.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 6% 29.3%±12.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 28.0%±13.5 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 223 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 33% 54.4%±8.5 53.0%
FH crosscourt 25% 51.3%±9.5 52.3%
FH through the middle 15% 47.7%±11.3 46.5%
BH through the middle 14% 40.8%±11.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 9% 54.0%±12.8 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Katie Boulter's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 133 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 44% 68% / 66%
Body 21% 15% 55% / 57%
T 40% 41% 71% / 68%

647 normal · 34 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 48% 68% / 66%
Body 15% 23% 62% / 56%
T 31% 28% 66% / 64%

532 normal · 99 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
Wide39% 61.5%±4.6 n=268 54% ▲
Body21% 56.5%±6.2 n=142 6% ▼
T40% 58.4%±4.7 n=271 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 52.9%±4.3 n=333 52%
Body17% 55.4%±7.0 n=105 2% ▼
T31% 54.0%±5.5 n=193 46% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.84).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: −2.3±4.5 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. (425 repeats, 845 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 82 39% −4.5±7.6
1stAd courtT 145 33% −2.6±5.8
1stAd courtWide 183 30% −4.7±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 98 34% −8.4±6.9
1stDeuce courtT 150 29% −2.9±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 189 36% +2.2±5.3
2ndAd courtBody 90 49% −6.3±7.5
2ndAd courtT 58 53% −2.2±8.8
2ndAd courtWide 108 52% −1.3±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 142 61% +6.2±6.1
2ndDeuce courtT 85 60% +3.8±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 67 53% −1.1±8.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.6% · won 66% · +3.8±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 61% · −2.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.0% · won 60% · −2.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 60% · −3.0±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · −3.4±11.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.8% · won 57% · +13.2±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 52% · +8.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.2% · won 53% · +9.2±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 53% · +9.6±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 49% · +5.6±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 54% · +9.5±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 50% · +5.5±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 49% · +4.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH down the line used 2.4% · won 49% · +5.4±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 47% · +2.8±8.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 59% · +11.6±11.6 vs own baseline · +15.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Rebecca Sramkova (4/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 56% · +8.5±11.6 vs own baseline · +10.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 57% · +9.8±12.9 vs own baseline · +22.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +7.7±11.9 vs own baseline · +16.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 53% · +6.1±11.0 vs own baseline · +1.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +5.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +14.1 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

FH to their backhand · serve +1+3.7224
FH to their forehand · return+3.3164
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.8141
FH to their backhand · return +1+2.6163
FH to the middle · serve +1+0.4131

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−1.3321
FH to their forehand · return−1.1123
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.0300
FH to their backhand · rally−0.8235
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.7142

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.54, Caroline Wozniacki +2.45, Angelique Kerber +1.93, Daria Kasatkina +1.87, Sara Errani +1.72

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.36, Angelique Kerber +1.20, Marie Bouzkova +0.99, Elina Avanesyan +0.78, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.63

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share61%
FH down the line37%
Wide serves · ad53%
Point-ending shots29.8%
Deep returns38%
BH down the line24%
Run-around forehands12%
Unforced errors / shot11.9%
Chipped returns16%
T serves · deuce40%
Through the middle31%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Backhand slice9%
T serves · ad31%
1st serve in59%
Avg rally length3.6

Plays most like

  1. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Donna Vekic 2014–2026 plan v
  3. Qinwen Zheng 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Lulu Sun 2022–2025 plan v
  8. Cristina Bucsa 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches