RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 23 charted matches · 2016–2026

Laura Siegemund

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.7% ±3.0 raw 52.8% · tour 56.3% · 1,727 points
Return points won 44.6% ±3.1 raw 41.7% · tour 43.7% · 1,648 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 −0.01 ±0.09 better than 52% of WTA · raw −0.01
Shot selection −0.15 ±0.31 better than 32% of WTA · raw −0.16
Execution −1.01 ±0.57 better than 17% of WTA · raw −1.07
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.66 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 41% 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 8,311 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Laura Siegemund 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 · 449 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 46.0%±6.4 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 33.3%±7.5 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 14% 38.1%±8.9 34.4%
BH down the line 13% 49.8%±9.3 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 41.5%±9.7 40.4%
BH down the line + approach 3% 78.3%±12.0 70.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 437 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 50.9%±7.5 52.7%
FH down the line 16% 46.6%±8.7 52.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 44.4%±9.3 50.9%
BH through the middle 13% 47.0%±9.5 46.2%
FH through the middle 11% 43.5%±10.0 45.8%
BH down the line 8% 49.1%±11.3 50.0%
FH drop shot down the line 3% 52.5%±14.8 51.4%
FH down the line + approach 2% 72.4%±13.4 68.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 430 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 45.0%±6.6 46.7%
FH down the line 22% 40.7%±7.6 44.9%
FH through the middle 13% 43.9%±9.2 41.3%
FH slice crosscourt 8% 38.5%±11.0 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 31.1%±10.7 29.2%
FH drop shot crosscourt 7% 51.5%±11.9 48.6%
FH lob through the middle 4% 27.4%±12.2 29.4%
FH slice down the line 4% 27.4%±12.2 24.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 292 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 45.8%±8.2 54.0%
FH down the line 19% 54.2%±9.5 53.3%
BH through the middle 14% 45.4%±10.6 46.3%
FH through the middle 12% 48.3%±11.2 45.5%
BH crosscourt 10% 47.0%±11.6 52.5%
BH down the line 8% 45.7%±12.6 51.0%
FH down the line + approach 6% 63.0%±13.1 71.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Laura Siegemund's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 229 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 36% 61% / 66%
Body 37% 45% 57% / 57%
T 24% 19% 65% / 68%

842 normal · 53 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 29% 57% / 66%
Body 33% 36% 53% / 56%
T 37% 35% 59% / 64%

652 normal · 176 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
Wide38% 57.3%±4.2 n=344 53% ▲
Body38% 53.1%±4.3 n=338 23% ▼
T24% 53.8%±5.3 n=213 24%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.43).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide30% 52.2%±4.9 n=249 45% ▲
Body34% 47.6%±4.7 n=280 19% ▼
T36% 51.7%±4.5 n=299 36%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
Optimal mix: +0.6 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: +0.1±4.7 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. (537 repeats, 1,140 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 122 47% +3.6±6.7
1stAd courtT 170 36% +0.3±5.6
1stAd courtWide 209 33% −1.3±5.0
1stDeuce courtBody 126 39% −3.6±6.4
1stDeuce courtT 149 29% −3.3±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 262 34% −0.4±4.5
2ndAd courtBody 150 51% −4.2±6.1
2ndAd courtT 46 45% −9.6±9.4
2ndAd courtWide 94 59% +5.4±7.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 163 51% −3.0±5.9
2ndDeuce courtT 88 58% +2.3±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 64 53% −0.4±8.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 55% · −1.9±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.3% · won 53% · −3.5±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 53% · −3.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 53% · −4.0±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 52% · −4.7±9.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 56% · +11.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.1% · won 52% · +8.0±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.9% · won 49% · +4.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 48% · +3.8±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.2% · won 49% · +4.2±11.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 56% · +12.8±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 52% · +8.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 49% · +5.9±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 48% · +4.8±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 46% · +3.1±11.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Laura Siegemund 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 50% · +4.4±11.5 vs own baseline · ±0.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marta Kostyuk (3/6)
  2. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 48% · +3.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 48% · +2.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marta Kostyuk (2/6)
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 48% · +3.0±13.0 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.5% · won 47% · +2.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +1.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Body serve → BH through the middle return, deep → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 46% · +0.7±12.7 vs own baseline · +4.8 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 forehand · rally+3.1204
FH to the middle · serve +1+2.1163
Body 1st serve · deuce court+1.4338
FH to their backhand · return+1.2153
BH to the middle · return+1.1306

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return +1−3.2136
BH to the middle · return +1−2.0137
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.2206
Body 2nd serve · ad court−1.0150
BH to the middle · return−0.8348

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.08, Caroline Wozniacki +1.85, Tatjana Maria +1.26, Daria Kasatkina +1.25, Angelique Kerber +1.24

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.06, Angelique Kerber +0.96, Marie Bouzkova +0.77, Elina Avanesyan +0.76, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.47

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Sara Errani, Jessica Pegula, Mirra Andreeva, Danielle Collins

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot5.4%
1st serve in70%
FH down the line34%
Unforced errors / shot12.7%
BH down the line25%
Chipped returns20%
Point-ending shots27.8%
Points at net10%
Forehand share54%
Backhand slice18%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · ad36%
Wide serves · deuce38%
Through the middle27%
Avg rally length3.9
Deep returns30%
Run-around forehands3%
Wide serves · ad30%
T serves · deuce24%

Plays most like

  1. Camila Osorio 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Timea Bacsinszky 2015–2019 plan v
  3. Kateryna Baindl 2017–2023 plan v
  4. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Kristina Mladenovic 2015–2023 plan v
  6. Su Wei Hsieh 2015–2024 plan v
  7. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  8. Aliaksandra Sasnovich 2015–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches