RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 17 charted matches · 2013–2024

Lesia Tsurenko

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.2% ±3.1 raw 50.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,160 points
Return points won 48.0% ±3.1 raw 45.3% · tour 43.7% · 1,179 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 −0.24 ±0.13 better than 14% of WTA · raw −0.24
Shot selection −0.07 ±0.18 better than 37% of WTA · raw −0.09
Execution +0.30 ±0.65 better than 72% of WTA · raw +0.19
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.55 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 59% 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 6,837 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lesia Tsurenko 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 · 437 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 48.1%±7.3 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 49.0%±8.2 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 41.1%±8.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 16% 51.9%±8.7 50.9%
FH through the middle 16% 44.5%±8.7 45.8%
BH down the line 8% 50.9%±11.3 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 435 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 31% 54.2%±6.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 45.3%±6.8 43.3%
BH down the line 21% 49.9%±7.8 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 9% 33.7%±10.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 51.5%±13.2 40.4%
FH inside-out 3% 52.9%±13.9 52.5%
BH slice down the line 2% 27.8%±13.5 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 413 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 44.9%±5.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 42.4%±7.2 41.3%
FH down the line 24% 45.7%±7.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 23.8%±12.2 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 31.3%±13.9 31.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 51.2%±7.3 47.9%
BH through the middle 30% 50.0%±7.9 42.7%
BH down the line 17% 57.4%±9.6 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 10% 33.4%±11.0 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 32.5%±14.1 38.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Lesia Tsurenko's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 149 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 33% 62% / 66%
Body 43% 36% 51% / 57%
T 28% 31% 65% / 68%

559 normal · 39 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 47% ▲ 59% / 66%
Body 44% 42% 49% / 56%
T 20% 11% ▼ 62% / 64%

447 normal · 110 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
Wide30% 52.8%±5.7 n=179 35% ▲
Body42% 48.8%±4.9 n=253 27% ▼
T28% 52.2%±5.9 n=166 38% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide38% 51.8%±5.3 n=214 39%
Body43% 49.6%±5.0 n=242 28% ▼
T18% 51.5%±7.2 n=101 33% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.91 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: +2.5±4.8 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. (477 repeats, 644 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 73 51% +6.8±8.1
1stAd courtT 141 41% +5.8±6.2
1stAd courtWide 139 36% +1.8±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 72 45% +2.3±8.1
1stDeuce courtT 125 30% −2.0±6.1
1stDeuce courtWide 181 37% +3.0±5.5
2ndAd courtBody 79 55% −0.4±7.8
2ndAd courtT 55 55% −0.3±8.9
2ndAd courtWide 79 55% +1.6±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 127 54% −0.1±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 51 57% +0.5±9.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 55 53% −0.7±8.9

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Lesia Tsurenko'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 57% · +2.0±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 53% · −1.6±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 52% · −3.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 52% · −3.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 4.0% · won 52% · −2.6±9.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 61% · +9.7±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 60% · +8.7±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.3% · won 59% · +7.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 58% · +6.3±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 56% · +5.1±10.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 59% · +8.4±8.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 57% · +6.6±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 55% · +4.3±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 54% · +4.2±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 55% · +5.2±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Lesia Tsurenko 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 1.0% · won 59% · +10.7±10.2 vs own baseline · +11.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (4/8), Elsa Jacquemot (4/6)
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 57% · +8.9±10.1 vs own baseline · +14.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (5/10), Ana Bogdan (8/10)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +7.1±10.7 vs own baseline · +12.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Julia Goerges (2/7), Bianca Andreescu (7/9)
  4. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +9.1±12.6 vs own baseline · +24.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.7% · won 55% · +6.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +11.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (4/8)
  6. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.7±12.6 vs own baseline · +13.5 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

BH to their forehand · rally+2.6247
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.2148
FH to their forehand · rally+1.9554
BH to their backhand · rally+1.6413
BH to the middle · rally+0.9368

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return−3.1179
FH to their backhand · return−2.1129
BH to the middle · rally−2.1339
FH to their forehand · return−2.0144
FH to the middle · rally−1.4298

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.30, Caroline Wozniacki +2.85, Daria Kasatkina +2.30, Angelique Kerber +2.26, Sara Errani +2.12

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.58, Angelique Kerber +2.32, Marie Bouzkova +2.23, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.82, Shuai Zhang +1.82

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Paula Badosa, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki, Elina Avanesyan

Tactical fingerprint

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

1st serve in69%
Avg rally length4.8
Through the middle31%
Deep returns34%
BH down the line22%
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice12%
Wide serves · ad38%
Forehand share52%
Points at net6%
Run-around forehands5%
FH down the line27%
Unforced errors / shot9.5%
Point-ending shots19.7%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
T serves · deuce28%
Wide serves · deuce30%
T serves · ad18%

Plays most like

  1. Madison Brengle 2014–2023 plan v
  2. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  3. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 2020–2025 plan v
  4. Arantxa Rus 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Anna Lena Friedsam 2014–2023 plan v
  7. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Elina Avanesyan 2023–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches