RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 40 charted matches · 1995–2006

Lindsay Davenport

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.4% ±2.8 raw 58.4% · tour 56.3% · 3,035 points
Return points won 48.3% ±2.9 raw 43.5% · tour 43.7% · 3,152 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 +0.45 ±0.06 better than 98% of WTA · raw +0.43
Shot selection +0.31 ±0.10 better than 79% of WTA · raw +0.28
Execution −0.13 ±0.28 better than 55% of WTA · raw −0.34
Tactical adaptability +0.20 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 40 matches
Adaptation speed +0.22 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.18 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 95% 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 14,648 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lindsay Davenport 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 · 784 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 29% 50.6%±5.2 52.7%
BH crosscourt 15% 48.4%±6.9 50.9%
FH down the line 14% 48.4%±7.2 52.2%
FH through the middle 14% 43.4%±7.2 45.8%
BH through the middle 12% 48.0%±7.8 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 51.0%±8.1 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 3% 70.8%±11.5 68.6%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 62.4%±14.3 66.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 714 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 56% 47.1%±4.0 46.7%
FH down the line 22% 38.7%±6.1 44.9%
FH through the middle 19% 36.9%±6.4 41.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 66.9%±13.5 65.4%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 669 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 51.9%±4.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 42.9%±5.9 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 48.0%±7.9 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 31.8%±10.8 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 37.7%±12.6 40.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 467 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 20% 55.3%±7.7 52.3%
BH crosscourt 18% 48.2%±8.1 50.8%
FH down the line 16% 56.0%±8.4 53.0%
BH down the line 14% 49.6%±8.8 50.6%
BH through the middle 14% 45.6%±8.8 46.2%
FH through the middle 10% 43.9%±9.8 46.5%
FH down the line + approach 2% 69.5%±13.8 69.2%
BH crosscourt + approach 2% 63.0%±14.5 64.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Lindsay Davenport's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 326 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 41% 66% / 66%
Body 8% 8% 57% / 57%
T 48% 51% 66% / 68%

1,493 normal · 87 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 44% 70% / 66%
Body 5% 5% 57% / 56%
T 53% 51% 67% / 64%

1,196 normal · 239 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
Wide44% 57.6%±3.0 n=691 41% ▼
Body8% 55.8%±6.5 n=127 0% ▼
T48% 57.9%±2.9 n=762 59% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.85).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 59.7%±3.2 n=606 52% ▲
Body5% 54.6%±8.2 n=70 0% ▼
T53% 59.1%±2.9 n=759 48% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.65).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.28 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: −3.2±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. (1,308 repeats, 1,627 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 157 44% ±0.0±6.0
1stAd courtT 443 38% +2.9±3.7
1stAd courtWide 319 32% −2.3±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 159 40% −2.5±5.9
1stDeuce courtT 363 34% +2.1±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 495 34% −0.5±3.4
2ndAd courtBody 184 56% +1.3±5.6
2ndAd courtT 194 56% +1.4±5.4
2ndAd courtWide 212 55% +1.9±5.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 216 57% +2.2±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 149 55% −0.8±6.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 233 56% +2.2±5.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 56% · −5.6±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 54% · −8.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 54% · −7.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 2.4% · won 53% · −8.6±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 55% · −6.9±6.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.7% · won 59% · +14.6±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.3% · won 60% · +15.7±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 53% · +8.4±6.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 5.5% · won 51% · +6.6±6.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 51% · +6.5±7.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.3% · won 54% · +5.3±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.5% · won 53% · +4.6±5.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 57% · +9.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 54% · +5.4±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.1% · won 57% · +8.9±11.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 60% · +11.6±11.4 vs own baseline · +19.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kim Clijsters (4/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 55% · +6.5±8.2 vs own baseline · +3.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Venus Williams (2/11), Kim Clijsters (3/6)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 58% · +9.3±11.3 vs own baseline · +9.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Amelie Mauresmo (4/9), Steffi Graf (5/6)
  4. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +11.2±12.4 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.4±12.1 vs own baseline · +16.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +5.9±9.9 vs own baseline · +13.6 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

T 2nd serve · ad court+1.5147
T 1st serve · ad court+1.4759
BH to their backhand · return+1.2458
FH to their forehand · return+1.1537
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.0196

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.8179
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.8349
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.2275
BH to their forehand · return−1.9198
BH slice to the middle · rally−1.4219

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad53%
T serves · deuce48%
Point-ending shots28.9%
Points at net11%
BH down the line24%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Unforced errors / shot11.5%
FH down the line30%
Wide serves · ad42%
Serve & volley1%
1st serve in62%
Backhand slice7%
Avg rally length3.7
Run-around forehands2%
Chipped returns1%
Deep returns28%
Drop shots / shot0.4%
Forehand share48%
Through the middle21%

Plays most like

  1. Serena Williams 1998–2026 plan v
  2. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009 plan v
  4. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  5. Mona Barthel 2012–2021 plan v
  6. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v
  7. Venus Williams 1997–2026 plan v
  8. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026
  2. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025
  3. Mona Barthel 2012–2021

Charted matches