RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 23 charted matches · 2022–2025

Linda Fruhvirtova

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.2% ±3.0 raw 56.3% · tour 56.3% · 1,597 points
Return points won 43.9% ±3.1 raw 42.5% · tour 43.7% · 1,582 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 +0.10 ±0.09 better than 72% of WTA · raw +0.11
Shot selection −0.11 ±0.11 better than 35% of WTA · raw −0.09
Execution +1.26 ±0.49 better than 95% of WTA · raw +1.43
Tactical adaptability −0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.35 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 81% 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 8,444 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Linda Fruhvirtova 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 · 546 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 47.0%±5.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 45.0%±6.3 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 49.4%±8.2 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 41.6%±12.4 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 48.9%±13.2 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 38.6%±14.2 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 493 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 31% 55.7%±6.2 52.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 55.5%±7.5 52.7%
BH crosscourt 15% 55.0%±8.5 50.9%
FH through the middle 14% 54.0%±8.6 45.8%
BH through the middle 10% 43.6%±10.0 46.2%
BH down the line 7% 58.9%±10.8 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 489 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 47.2%±5.1 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 44.5%±6.9 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 48.4%±8.3 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 27.3%±10.7 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 26.1%±12.0 31.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 297 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 49.6%±6.5 47.0%
FH through the middle 26% 42.6%±8.3 41.5%
FH down the line 18% 48.3%±9.6 46.4%
FH slice through the middle 6% 30.4%±12.1 29.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +10 How much less varied Linda Fruhvirtova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 173 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 21% ▼ 67% / 66%
Body 14% 11% 63% / 57%
T 46% 68% ▲ 71% / 68%

780 normal · 53 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 46% ▲ 68% / 66%
Body 17% 10% 52% / 56%
T 45% 44% 64% / 64%

631 normal · 120 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
Wide39% 61.4%±4.3 n=325 54% ▲
Body14% 61.3%±6.7 n=113 2% ▼
T47% 56.4%±4.0 n=395 44% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.27).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 53.6%±4.6 n=290 53% ▲
Body16% 47.6%±6.7 n=122 1% ▼
T45% 55.0%±4.3 n=339 46%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.21).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.58 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: −0.9±3.8 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. (383 repeats, 1,155 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 93 42% −2.3±7.3
1stAd courtT 186 35% −0.5±5.3
1stAd courtWide 199 37% +2.4±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 144 48% +5.5±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 162 28% −4.2±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 200 32% −1.8±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 133 56% +1.1±6.4
2ndAd courtT 57 58% +3.0±8.7
2ndAd courtWide 90 49% −4.3±7.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 173 47% −7.0±5.8
2ndDeuce courtT 68 57% +0.9±8.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 67 57% +3.1±8.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 68% · +6.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 62% · +0.9±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 62% · +0.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 61% · −0.4±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 58% · −3.6±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 54% · +9.2±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.3% · won 55% · +9.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 54% · +9.3±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 53% · +8.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 52% · +7.3±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 59% · +9.4±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 60% · +10.8±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 56% · +6.3±6.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.8% · won 56% · +6.3±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 57% · +7.2±9.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Linda Fruhvirtova 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 0.8% · won 56% · +6.4±10.7 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Magda Linette (6/9)
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +17.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Magda Linette (8/12)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +9.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jil Teichmann (5/8), Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva (5/8)
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +7.9±12.0 vs own baseline · +17.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva (5/9), Olga Danilovic (5/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 54% · +4.8±9.8 vs own baseline · +9.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Magda Linette (10/15)
  6. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 56% · +6.5±11.7 vs own baseline · +16.6 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 forehand · rally+3.9613
FH to their backhand · serve +1+3.0224
FH to the middle · serve +1+2.9146
FH to the middle · rally+2.6343
FH to the middle · return+2.6335

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−5.0187
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.5185
BH to the middle · return +1−3.0123
FH to their forehand · rally−2.3629
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.2167

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Caroline Wozniacki +3.67, Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.60, Angelique Kerber +3.20, Daria Kasatkina +3.07, Katie Volynets +2.88

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +3.70, Angelique Kerber +3.40, Marie Bouzkova +3.29, Elina Avanesyan +3.02, Shuai Zhang +2.85

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce47%
Avg rally length4.7
T serves · ad45%
FH down the line33%
BH down the line24%
Forehand share55%
Deep returns34%
1st serve in62%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice13%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Wide serves · ad39%
Run-around forehands5%
Through the middle27%
Chipped returns4%
Points at net4%
Point-ending shots17.2%
Unforced errors / shot6.9%

Plays most like

  1. Magdalena Frech 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Jaqueline Cristian 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v
  4. Victoria Azarenka 2009–2025 plan v
  5. Qiang Wang 2012–2024 plan v
  6. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v
  7. Dinara Safina 2007–2011 plan v
  8. Vera Zvonareva 2003–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013

Charted matches