WTA · Right-handed · 51 charted matches · 2022–2026
Linda Noskova
Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player
Against an average opponent
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
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 15,402 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Linda Noskova 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 · 792 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 20% | 59.6%±6.0 | 52.7% |
| BH through the middle | 20% | 44.8%±6.1 | 46.2% |
| FH through the middle | 20% | 52.4%±6.2 | 45.8% |
| BH crosscourt | 15% | 52.6%±6.9 | 50.9% |
| FH down the line | 14% | 45.7%±7.2 | 52.2% |
| BH down the line | 7% | 50.0%±9.3 | 50.0% |
| BH drop shot crosscourt | 1% | 43.1%±14.6 | 46.8% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side
position worth 45% to the average player · 672 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 36% | 47.4%±5.0 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 26% | 48.3%±5.9 | 43.3% |
| BH down the line | 18% | 42.6%±6.8 | 46.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | 31.9%±10.2 | 34.4% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 5% | 32.9%±10.4 | 40.4% |
| BH drop shot crosscourt | 2% | 51.4%±13.7 | 47.5% |
| BH slice down the line | 2% | 29.2%±13.2 | 31.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 614 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 39% | 46.8%±5.1 | 46.7% |
| FH through the middle | 25% | 38.8%±6.0 | 41.3% |
| FH down the line | 22% | 39.9%±6.4 | 44.9% |
| FH slice through the middle | 5% | 15.4%±8.3 | 29.2% |
| FH slice crosscourt | 5% | 25.3%±10.2 | 31.9% |
| FH slice down the line | 2% | 26.2%±13.2 | 24.3% |
Return +1: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 481 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 22% | 51.8%±7.4 | 46.2% |
| FH through the middle | 20% | 49.0%±7.6 | 46.5% |
| FH crosscourt | 18% | 58.9%±7.9 | 52.3% |
| BH crosscourt | 17% | 52.1%±8.1 | 50.8% |
| FH down the line | 13% | 52.6%±9.1 | 53.0% |
| BH down the line | 7% | 46.6%±11.0 | 50.6% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Linda Noskova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 360 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 30% ▼ | 70% / 66% |
| Body | 10% | 8% | 57% / 57% |
| T | 50% | 63% ▲ | 73% / 68% |
1,759 normal · 80 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 52% | 72% / 66% |
| Body | 8% | 9% | 52% / 56% |
| T | 43% | 39% | 68% / 64% |
1,411 normal · 280 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 39% | 63.6%±2.9 n=726 | 55% ▲ |
| Body | 10% | 55.2%±5.6 n=187 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 50% | 61.0%±2.6 n=926 | 45% ▼ |
Off equilibrium (p = 0.049): serve wide more. Gap 2.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 59.1%±2.8 n=833 | 56% ▲ |
| Body | 8% | 47.7%±6.3 n=141 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 42% | 58.5%±3.0 n=717 | 44% ▲ |
Off equilibrium (p = 0.006): serve wide more. Gap 1.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 0.78 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: +2.4±3.3 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. (1,325 repeats, 2,103 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 208 | 42% | −2.2±5.3 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 370 | 34% | −1.9±3.9 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 390 | 30% | −4.1±3.7 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 251 | 43% | ±0.0±4.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 391 | 26% | −6.1±3.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 478 | 35% | +0.9±3.5 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 289 | 51% | −4.4±4.6 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 111 | 56% | +1.4±6.9 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 232 | 56% | +2.6±5.0 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 322 | 50% | −4.1±4.4 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 168 | 48% | −8.1±5.8 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 154 | 50% | −4.2±6.1 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Linda Noskova's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 65% · +0.7±8.2 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 63% · −2.1±8.1 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 62% · −2.5±7.8 vs own baseline
- T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 60% · −4.6±7.6 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 57% · −7.6±7.6 vs own baseline
Return
- vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 56% · +13.7±8.5 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 55% · +12.7±8.1 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.3% · won 54% · +11.7±7.6 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.3% · won 55% · +12.3±8.6 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 51% · +8.7±8.1 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 63% · +14.0±10.7 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 55% · +5.7±7.5 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 55% · +5.3±7.5 vs own baseline
- FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 57% · +7.8±10.4 vs own baseline
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 53% · +3.5±7.5 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 Noskova wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 63% · +14.7±11.1 vs own baseline · +25.4 vs tour on the same sequence
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 55% · +6.9±8.2 vs own baseline · +9.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marie Bouzkova (3/6), Iga Swiatek (7/14)
- BH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 58% · +9.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +22.0 vs tour on the same sequence
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 57% · +8.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +15.4 vs tour on the same sequence
- BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 54% · +5.9±10.3 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (4/8)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 55% · +6.8±11.5 vs own baseline · +15.7 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 · serve +1 | +2.9 | 244 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | +2.7 | 239 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +2.5 | 403 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +2.4 | 153 |
| Wide 1st serve · deuce court | +2.0 | 726 |
Most exposed to
| BH to their forehand · return +1 | −4.0 | 141 |
| FH to their forehand · return +1 | −2.8 | 238 |
| Body 2nd serve · ad court | −2.7 | 289 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | −2.6 | 415 |
| Wide 2nd serve · ad court | −1.9 | 232 |
Best-equipped opponents
Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.63, Caroline Wozniacki +2.36, Angelique Kerber +1.86, Daria Kasatkina +1.81, Maja Chwalinska +1.69
Favourable matchups
Sara Errani +1.76, Angelique Kerber +1.35, Marie Bouzkova +1.32, Elina Avanesyan +1.27, Katie Volynets +0.99
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Victoria Azarenka, Iga Swiatek, Caroline Wozniacki, Leylah Fernandez, Jessica Pegula
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.
| Drop shots / shot | 3.8% | |
| Point-ending shots | 33.3% | |
| T serves · deuce | 50% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 13.3% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 49% | |
| BH down the line | 24% | |
| Through the middle | 32% | |
| T serves · ad | 42% | |
| Deep returns | 35% | |
| Chipped returns | 15% | |
| FH down the line | 29% | |
| Serve & volley | 0% | |
| Points at net | 7% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 39% | |
| 1st serve in | 61% | |
| Forehand share | 52% | |
| Backhand slice | 9% | |
| Run-around forehands | 4% | |
| Avg rally length | 3.4 |
Plays most like
- Clara Tauson 2020–2026 plan v
- Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
- Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
- Aliaksandra Sasnovich 2015–2025 plan v
- Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
- Sofia Kenin 2017–2026 plan v
- Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
- Johanna Konta 2013–2020 plan v
Closest from another era
- Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
- Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
- Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
Charted matches
- Linda Noskova v Karolina Muchova W Wimbledon F · Grass · 11 Jul 2026
- Linda Noskova v Marta Kostyuk W Wimbledon SF · Grass · 9 Jul 2026
- Linda Noskova v Sorana Cirstea Wimbledon R32 · Grass · 4 Jul 2026
- Alexandra Eala v Linda Noskova W Berlin SF · Grass · 20 Jun 2026
- Linda Noskova v Marta Kostyuk L Madrid QF · Clay · 29 Apr 2026
- Linda Noskova v Talia Gibson W Indian Wells QF · Hard · 12 Mar 2026
- Alexandra Eala v Linda Noskova W Indian Wells R16 · Hard · 10 Mar 2026
- Linda Noskova v Jessica Bouzas Maneiro W Indian Wells R64 · Hard · 6 Mar 2026
- Linda Noskova v Sorana Cirstea Dubai R32 · Hard · 17 Feb 2026
- Maya Joint v Linda Noskova W Doha R64 · Hard · 9 Feb 2026
- Linda Noskova v Xin Yu Wang L Australian Open R32 · Hard · 24 Jan 2026
- Linda Noskova v Mirra Andreeva L Brisbane R16 · Hard · 8 Jan 2026