RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 2019–2022

Lesley Pattinama Kerkhove

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.2% ±3.3 raw 55.7% · tour 56.3% · 803 points
Return points won 43.5% ±3.3 raw 41.3% · tour 43.7% · 756 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 −0.19 ±0.16 better than 18% of WTA · raw −0.18
Shot selection +0.48 ±0.25 better than 94% of WTA · raw +0.51
Execution −1.76 ±0.65 better than 7% of WTA · raw −1.55
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.52 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 64% 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 3,661 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lesley Pattinama Kerkhove 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 · 220 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 53.2%±9.4 52.2%
FH crosscourt 21% 47.8%±10.1 52.7%
BH crosscourt 18% 47.0%±10.6 50.9%
BH through the middle 16% 44.1%±11.0 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 44.5%±11.3 45.8%
BH down the line 5% 41.9%±14.6 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 182 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 40% 43.1%±8.5 43.3%
BH crosscourt 37% 48.9%±8.8 47.6%
BH down the line 19% 42.5%±11.0 46.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 151 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 46.2%±9.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 36% 46.3%±9.5 41.3%
FH down the line 23% 46.3%±11.2 44.9%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 148 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 49.4%±11.2 53.3%
BH through the middle 20% 42.5%±11.5 46.3%
FH crosscourt 19% 57.9%±11.7 54.0%
FH through the middle 17% 44.7%±12.2 45.5%
BH crosscourt 8% 42.2%±14.4 52.5%
BH down the line 8% 63.1%±14.0 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Lesley Pattinama Kerkhove's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 92 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 47% 63% / 66%
Body 30% 29% 61% / 57%
T 25% 24% 63% / 68%

393 normal · 17 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 19% 20% 70% / 66%
Body 37% 37% 62% / 56%
T 45% 43% 66% / 64%

314 normal · 75 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
Wide46% 52.8%±5.6 n=187 51% ▲
Body30% 54.0%±6.7 n=122 15% ▼
T25% 52.8%±7.2 n=101 34% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.96).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide19% 62.7%±7.8 n=74 34% ▲
Body37% 54.3%±6.2 n=143 22% ▼
T44% 59.0%±5.7 n=172 44%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.25).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.51 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: +7.2±2.7 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. (297 repeats, 482 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 49 46% +1.9±9.2
1stAd courtT 89 38% +2.0±7.3
1stAd courtWide 84 29% −5.2±7.0
1stDeuce courtBody 72 44% +1.3±8.1
1stDeuce courtT 74 28% −4.6±7.2
1stDeuce courtWide 101 36% +2.0±6.9
2ndAd courtBody 65 53% −1.9±8.4
2ndAd courtT 26 51% −4.1±11.0
2ndAd courtWide 43 43% −11.0±9.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 67 54% −0.5±8.3
2ndDeuce courtT 41 50% −5.6±9.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 41 57% +2.8±9.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.5% · won 56% · −4.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 5.4% · won 54% · −6.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 5.3% · won 52% · −8.6±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.9% · won 50% · −10.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 49% · −11.2±11.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.7% · won 52% · +2.1±11.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.4% · won 50% · +0.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 7.4% · won 50% · +0.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.7% · won 45% · −4.6±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 9.4% · won 43% · −6.8±10.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 54% · +7.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 50% · +3.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 50% · +3.4±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 6.2% · won 49% · +2.6±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 4.9% · won 49% · +2.5±11.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.2% · won 51% · +5.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +9.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 49% · +2.7±12.7 vs own baseline · −0.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.0% · won 48% · +1.6±12.6 vs own baseline · +6.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 48% · +1.6±12.6 vs own baseline · +1.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 47% · +0.5±12.4 vs own baseline · −0.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ivana Jorovic (4/7)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.0% · won 45% · −0.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +1.2 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+2.8129
FH to the middle · return+0.6163
T 1st serve · ad court+0.5172
Body 1st serve · ad court±0.0143
FH to their forehand · rally−0.1182

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−1.9150
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.8145
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.2151
T 1st serve · ad court−0.8140
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.1150

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Clara Burel, Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Arianne Hartono, Angelique Kerber

Tactical fingerprint

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

FH down the line35%
Unforced errors / shot12.9%
T serves · ad44%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Point-ending shots27.3%
Forehand share56%
Run-around forehands11%
1st serve in65%
Through the middle31%
Deep returns35%
Points at net8%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice8%
Chipped returns4%
Avg rally length3.6
Drop shots / shot0.5%
T serves · deuce25%
Wide serves · ad19%

Plays most like

  1. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v
  3. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  5. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v
  6. Anna Bondar 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Dominika Cibulkova 2009–2019 plan v
  8. Louisa Chirico 2015–2017 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches