RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2015–2023

Kristina Mladenovic

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.0% ±2.9 raw 54.5% · tour 56.3% · 1,481 points
Return points won 44.6% ±3.0 raw 42.0% · tour 43.7% · 1,393 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 +0.11 ±0.08 better than 74% of WTA · raw +0.11
Shot selection +0.31 ±0.15 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.31
Execution −1.28 ±0.74 better than 14% of WTA · raw −1.23
Tactical adaptability +0.14 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed −0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.64 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 45% 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 6,900 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Kristina Mladenovic 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 · 414 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 25% 36.8%±7.1 43.3%
BH crosscourt 22% 45.6%±7.7 47.6%
BH down the line 15% 46.1%±9.1 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 44.2%±10.6 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 48.9%±10.9 34.4%
FH inside-out 5% 52.5%±12.8 52.5%
BH drop shot down the line 5% 44.6%±12.9 49.1%
FH inside-in 3% 53.3%±14.1 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 288 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 49.9%±8.9 52.2%
FH crosscourt 22% 60.4%±8.9 52.7%
BH through the middle 15% 44.8%±10.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 12% 40.3%±10.9 45.8%
BH down the line 11% 44.2%±11.3 50.0%
BH crosscourt 9% 40.8%±11.8 50.9%
BH slice down the line 3% 45.9%±15.0 43.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 279 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 49.9%±6.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 20% 41.9%±9.2 41.3%
FH down the line 18% 50.7%±9.8 44.9%
FH slice crosscourt 8% 29.5%±11.6 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 5% 63.9%±13.8 65.4%
FH slice through the middle 5% 26.8%±12.7 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 223 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 30% 49.5%±8.9 43.0%
BH crosscourt 28% 39.2%±8.8 47.8%
BH slice through the middle 14% 28.2%±10.3 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 37.0%±12.1 39.6%
BH down the line 7% 37.8%±13.5 46.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Kristina Mladenovic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 190 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 59% ▲ 65% / 66%
Body 16% 9% 61% / 57%
T 38% 32% 76% / 68%

710 normal · 56 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 46% ▲ 66% / 66%
Body 26% 22% 53% / 56%
T 39% 33% 66% / 64%

574 normal · 134 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% 57.9%±4.1 n=359 62% ▲
Body16% 56.4%±6.6 n=121 1% ▼
T37% 54.6%±4.6 n=286 37%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide37% 51.6%±4.8 n=262 37%
Body25% 49.6%±5.7 n=178 10% ▼
T38% 54.4%±4.7 n=268 53% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.55 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±4.1 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. (464 repeats, 972 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 74 36% −8.2±7.7
1stAd courtT 134 35% −1.0±6.1
1stAd courtWide 178 30% −4.5±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 94 42% −0.8±7.3
1stDeuce courtT 182 32% −0.2±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 150 30% −3.9±5.6
2ndAd courtBody 74 54% −0.7±8.0
2ndAd courtT 58 53% −2.2±8.8
2ndAd courtWide 138 52% −1.1±6.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 105 58% +3.6±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 134 61% +4.8±6.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 67 51% −3.1±8.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 61% · +0.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 60% · +0.4±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 57% · −2.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 57% · −2.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 57% · −3.3±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 53% · +9.9±11.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.5% · won 50% · +7.0±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.6% · won 50% · +7.0±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, short used 2.6% · won 48% · +5.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 46% · +3.3±11.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 56% · +8.1±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 55% · +6.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 53% · +4.8±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.4% · won 51% · +2.9±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 50% · +1.9±10.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH down the line used 0.6% · won 54% · +5.7±12.8 vs own baseline · +10.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 48% · +0.1±11.6 vs own baseline · −0.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Saville (1/7), Kiki Bertens (2/6)
  3. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 47% · −0.4±13.0 vs own baseline · −6.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.8% · won 47% · −1.1±12.0 vs own baseline · +2.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 46% · −1.6±12.8 vs own baseline · −4.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 46% · −1.5±11.0 vs own baseline · −2.5 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 · rally+2.1272
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.3205
FH to their forehand · rally+1.1308
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+0.3129
FH to their forehand · return +1+0.2124

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.7128
FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.1178
FH to their forehand · return−2.1126
FH to their backhand · return−2.0176
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.8196

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Alexandra Eala, Kayla Day, Caroline Wozniacki, Alize Cornet

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot4.4%
Run-around forehands18%
BH down the line25%
Point-ending shots28.8%
Points at net11%
Wide serves · deuce47%
FH down the line33%
Backhand slice24%
Unforced errors / shot11.8%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce37%
T serves · ad38%
Chipped returns8%
Forehand share53%
Through the middle27%
Wide serves · ad37%
Deep returns29%
Avg rally length3.7
1st serve in58%

Plays most like

  1. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  2. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  3. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Hailey Baptiste 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Petra Martic 2010–2024 plan v
  6. Clara Tauson 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Martina Hingis 1996–2007

Charted matches