RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2019–2026

Katie Volynets

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.8% ±3.2 raw 55.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,491 points
Return points won 45.4% ±3.3 raw 44.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,499 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 −0.17 ±0.13 better than 23% of WTA · raw −0.16
Shot selection ±0.00 ±0.15 better than 45% of WTA · raw +0.02
Execution +1.57 ±0.45 better than 97% of WTA · raw +1.70
Tactical adaptability −0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.59 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 53% 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 9,129 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Katie Volynets 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 · 762 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 33% 54.8%±5.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 48.5%±5.1 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 55.0%±6.5 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 32.4%±8.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 32.0%±11.6 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 31.5%±12.7 31.7%
FH inside-in 2% 56.2%±14.0 55.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 588 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 46.7%±4.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 24% 45.8%±6.4 41.3%
FH down the line 22% 47.0%±6.7 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 36.0%±11.9 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 37.5%±12.4 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 577 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 56.1%±6.2 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 54.7%±7.0 52.2%
FH through the middle 18% 49.7%±7.4 45.8%
BH through the middle 17% 46.0%±7.5 46.2%
BH crosscourt 9% 46.7%±9.7 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 57.4%±9.9 50.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 411 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 47.7%±5.5 47.0%
FH through the middle 22% 40.6%±7.7 41.5%
FH down the line 19% 54.4%±8.3 46.4%
FH slice through the middle 4% 26.6%±12.0 29.3%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 36.2%±13.6 31.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Katie Volynets's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 174 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 32% ▼ 64% / 66%
Body 28% 34% 52% / 57%
T 24% 34% ▲ 58% / 68%

730 normal · 41 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 32% 68% / 66%
Body 23% 22% 54% / 56%
T 50% 47% 59% / 64%

584 normal · 133 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% 60.5%±4.1 n=364 62% ▲
Body29% 50.1%±5.2 n=220 13% ▼
T24% 56.2%±5.5 n=187 25%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.021): serve wide more. Gap 4.0 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide28% 59.1%±5.3 n=200 43% ▲
Body22% 51.2%±5.9 n=161 7% ▼
T50% 55.5%±4.2 n=356 50%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.19).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.00 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: −6.4±4.1 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. (456 repeats, 992 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 90 48% +4.6±7.5
1stAd courtT 179 36% +0.2±5.5
1stAd courtWide 201 38% +3.8±5.3
1stDeuce courtBody 115 43% ±0.0±6.8
1stDeuce courtT 135 37% +5.2±6.2
1stDeuce courtWide 242 34% −0.1±4.7
2ndAd courtBody 114 54% −1.2±6.8
2ndAd courtT 41 60% +4.8±9.6
2ndAd courtWide 93 55% +1.0±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 170 53% −1.3±5.8
2ndDeuce courtT 57 57% +1.2±8.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 59 50% −4.2±8.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 64% · +6.2±8.9 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 59% · +0.8±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · −0.4±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · −0.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 6.5% · won 57% · −0.7±7.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.9% · won 54% · +7.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 53% · +5.7±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.1% · won 55% · +8.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.9% · won 54% · +6.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, short used 2.0% · won 54% · +7.2±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 66% · +16.0±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 60% · +9.3±7.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 57% · +6.2±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH down the line used 2.7% · won 57% · +6.7±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 59% · +8.1±10.5 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 Volynets wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 62% · +11.6±8.4 vs own baseline · +17.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Venus Williams (4/7), Ons Jabeur (5/8)
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 64% · +13.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +29.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +11.6±12.2 vs own baseline · +23.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 60% · +9.7±11.9 vs own baseline · +23.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arantxa Rus (15/21)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.4% · won 55% · +4.9±8.2 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Venus Williams (3/7), Evgeniya Rodina (4/8)
  6. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 56% · +5.4±9.5 vs own baseline · +9.4 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+3.9149
BH to their backhand · rally+2.7485
BH to the middle · rally+2.6543
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.5124
FH to their forehand · return+2.4204

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.8255
BH to their backhand · return−3.0168
FH to their backhand · return−3.0153
FH to the middle · return−2.9395
BH to the middle · return−2.9279

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.63, Caroline Wozniacki +3.62, Angelique Kerber +3.03, Daria Kasatkina +2.94, Linda Fruhvirtova +2.79

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +3.64, Angelique Kerber +3.46, Marie Bouzkova +3.29, Elina Avanesyan +2.92, Linda Fruhvirtova +2.88

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.

1st serve in78%
Avg rally length5.2
T serves · ad50%
Wide serves · deuce47%
BH down the line23%
Through the middle31%
Forehand share55%
FH down the line30%
Deep returns33%
Backhand slice14%
Serve & volley0%
Run-around forehands6%
Points at net6%
Chipped returns6%
Drop shots / shot0.4%
Wide serves · ad28%
Unforced errors / shot7.3%
Point-ending shots16.2%
T serves · deuce24%

Plays most like

  1. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v
  2. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Daria Kasatkina 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Sloane Stephens 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Zarina Diyas 2014–2025 plan v
  7. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Tereza Martincova 2015–2022 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches