RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 47 charted matches · 2020–2026

Leylah Fernandez

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.3% ±2.7 raw 58.9% · tour 56.3% · 3,143 points
Return points won 45.0% ±2.7 raw 41.8% · tour 43.7% · 3,372 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 ±0.06 better than 23% of WTA · raw −0.16
Shot selection +0.22 ±0.11 better than 69% of WTA · raw +0.22
Execution +0.34 ±0.42 better than 74% of WTA · raw +0.36
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 47 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.33 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 3% 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 16,368 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Leylah Fernandez 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 · 986 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 52.3%±5.1 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 50.9%±5.6 52.2%
FH through the middle 16% 48.1%±6.1 45.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 51.5%±6.8 50.9%
BH through the middle 11% 47.6%±7.1 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 50.0%±8.1 50.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 77.0%±11.7 69.7%
FH down the line + approach 1% 60.4%±14.5 68.6%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 978 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 49.1%±4.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 20% 41.8%±5.5 43.3%
BH down the line 19% 50.4%±5.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 9% 29.2%±7.2 34.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 26.9%±8.0 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 34.8%±9.2 40.4%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 39.6%±12.7 49.1%
BH drop shot down the line + approach 2% 59.1%±13.7 58.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 842 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 46.2%±4.5 46.7%
FH down the line 29% 43.8%±5.1 44.9%
FH through the middle 25% 35.7%±5.2 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 4% 30.5%±10.5 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 24.7%±11.5 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 1% 73.6%±13.2 65.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 625 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 54.8%±6.3 52.3%
FH through the middle 19% 48.8%±7.0 46.5%
FH down the line 17% 53.3%±7.3 53.0%
BH crosscourt 15% 49.7%±7.7 50.8%
BH through the middle 12% 43.1%±8.2 46.2%
BH down the line 7% 43.7%±10.4 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Leylah Fernandez's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 334 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 23% ▼ 69% / 66%
Body 18% 32% ▲ 57% / 57%
T 45% 44% 64% / 68%

1,546 normal · 90 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 55% 69% / 66%
Body 16% 16% 55% / 56%
T 30% 29% 71% / 64%

1,255 normal · 244 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
Wide35% 59.3%±3.3 n=580 51% ▲
Body19% 54.7%±4.4 n=313 4% ▼
T45% 57.9%±2.9 n=743 45%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.34).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 62.3%±2.8 n=809 69% ▲
Body16% 56.1%±5.0 n=240 1% ▼
T30% 58.7%±3.7 n=450 30%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.11).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.74 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: −2.2±3.4 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. (885 repeats, 2,156 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 177 47% +3.5±5.7
1stAd courtT 422 34% −1.8±3.7
1stAd courtWide 421 31% −3.8±3.6
1stDeuce courtBody 258 42% −0.7±4.8
1stDeuce courtT 321 31% −1.2±4.1
1stDeuce courtWide 526 33% −1.2±3.3
2ndAd courtBody 265 54% −1.3±4.8
2ndAd courtT 199 57% +1.5±5.4
2ndAd courtWide 139 56% +2.1±6.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 265 56% +1.3±4.8
2ndDeuce courtT 97 59% +2.9±7.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 275 49% −4.9±4.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 67% · +4.1±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 58% · −4.8±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 57% · −5.5±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 57% · −5.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · −8.8±8.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 59% · +16.8±7.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.9% · won 53% · +11.1±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 53% · +10.7±7.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.9% · won 53% · +10.2±7.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 50% · +7.9±8.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.2% · won 57% · +10.9±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 56% · +9.9±7.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 54% · +7.8±6.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.3% · won 50% · +3.9±5.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 52% · +5.9±7.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 54% · +6.1±8.2 vs own baseline · +1.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Paula Badosa (4/8), Elina Svitolina (6/8)
  2. BH crosscourt → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +9.3±10.9 vs own baseline · +15.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.1% · won 53% · +5.4±7.9 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Naomi Osaka (1/6), Ana Bogdan (2/7)
  4. BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 59% · +11.6±12.5 vs own baseline · +26.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 56% · +7.9±11.3 vs own baseline · +16.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 53% · +4.7±8.3 vs own baseline · +7.7 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 · return +1+3.2236
BH to their forehand · serve +1+3.0237
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.8520
FH to their forehand · rally+2.8739
FH to the middle · return+2.7637

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.0968
FH to the middle · rally−2.9524
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−2.3275
BH to their forehand · rally−2.2697
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.9417

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.21, Caroline Wozniacki +2.85, Angelique Kerber +2.57, Daria Kasatkina +2.26, Maja Chwalinska +2.14

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.61, Angelique Kerber +2.59, Marie Bouzkova +2.13, Elina Avanesyan +2.08, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.71

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.

Wide serves · ad54%
T serves · deuce45%
Forehand share57%
BH down the line24%
Points at net9%
1st serve in64%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
Point-ending shots25.9%
FH down the line31%
Through the middle30%
Deep returns33%
Backhand slice18%
Serve & volley1%
Avg rally length4.0
Chipped returns8%
Run-around forehands5%
Unforced errors / shot9.7%
Wide serves · deuce35%
T serves · ad30%

Plays most like

  1. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Cristina Bucsa 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Victoria Azarenka 2009–2025 plan v
  7. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  8. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches