RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 42 charted matches · 2021–2026

Liudmila Samsonova

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.2% ±2.7 raw 60.4% · tour 56.3% · 3,058 points
Return points won 45.0% ±2.8 raw 41.3% · tour 43.7% · 3,064 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 −0.05 ±0.05 better than 46% of WTA · raw −0.05
Shot selection +0.65 ±0.06 better than 97% of WTA · raw +0.64
Execution −1.48 ±0.54 better than 10% of WTA · raw −1.53
Tactical adaptability +0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 41 matches
Adaptation speed +0.12 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.55 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 60% 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 13,182 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Liudmila Samsonova 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 · 733 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 47.6%±5.2 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 50.2%±6.1 52.2%
FH through the middle 18% 46.5%±6.6 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 39.2%±7.2 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 53.3%±8.4 50.9%
BH down the line 3% 46.3%±12.8 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 572 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 50.8%±5.9 52.3%
BH through the middle 19% 46.7%±7.2 46.2%
FH through the middle 19% 51.8%±7.3 46.5%
FH down the line 15% 54.9%±8.0 53.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 54.6%±9.2 50.8%
BH down the line 4% 36.6%±11.9 50.6%
FH crosscourt + approach 3% 69.6%±12.8 66.8%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 527 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 43.0%±5.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 36% 39.4%±5.5 43.3%
BH down the line 11% 42.6%±9.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.2%±12.2 34.4%
FH inside-out 3% 61.9%±13.0 52.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 513 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 53% 47.9%±4.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 29% 37.7%±6.1 41.3%
FH down the line 14% 42.2%±8.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 19.0%±10.8 29.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Liudmila Samsonova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 315 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 51% 69% / 66%
Body 16% 16% 66% / 57%
T 34% 33% 81% / 68%

1,509 normal · 82 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 38% 72% / 66%
Body 20% 18% 59% / 56%
T 40% 44% 70% / 64%

1,223 normal · 233 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
Wide51% 60.5%±2.8 n=806 50%
Body16% 61.5%±4.8 n=251 1% ▼
T34% 61.5%±3.4 n=534 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.90).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide40% 60.3%±3.3 n=581 46% ▲
Body20% 57.7%±4.6 n=287 5% ▼
T40% 60.4%±3.2 n=588 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.48 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: −2.1±2.4 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. (1,045 repeats, 1,918 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 173 40% −3.9±5.7
1stAd courtT 345 35% −1.0±4.0
1stAd courtWide 414 35% +0.8±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 256 43% +0.7±4.8
1stDeuce courtT 386 29% −2.9±3.7
1stDeuce courtWide 399 31% −3.2±3.7
2ndAd courtBody 210 51% −3.6±5.3
2ndAd courtT 66 55% −0.3±8.4
2ndAd courtWide 263 58% +4.2±4.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 241 55% +1.0±5.0
2ndDeuce courtT 209 53% −2.5±5.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 97 49% −4.8±7.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 63% · −1.9±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 61% · −3.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 59% · −5.4±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 60% · −4.6±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · −5.9±8.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 55% · +14.2±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 55% · +14.0±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.1% · won 58% · +17.3±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 54% · +12.7±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 53% · +12.3±8.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 54% · +8.7±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 52% · +7.2±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.0% · won 49% · +4.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 50% · +4.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 49% · +3.9±8.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle return, deep → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +10.7±11.5 vs own baseline · +17.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +8.8±10.6 vs own baseline · +13.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 56% · +9.2±12.1 vs own baseline · +15.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 56% · +9.4±12.3 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 54% · +7.3±11.1 vs own baseline · +7.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +5.9±10.1 vs own baseline · +4.5 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 1st serve · deuce court+1.4510
FH to their backhand · serve +1+0.7424
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.1569
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.1453
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−0.1225

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · deuce court−2.2596
FH to the middle · return +1−1.2200
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.2239
FH to their forehand · rally−1.2573
T 1st serve · ad court−0.8524

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.85, Caroline Wozniacki +1.34, Tatjana Maria +1.10, Daria Kasatkina +0.74, Sara Errani +0.69

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.48, Angelique Kerber +0.11, Marie Bouzkova −0.09, Elina Avanesyan −0.11, Katie Volynets −0.28

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Serena Williams, Madison Keys, Ashlyn Krueger, Karolina Pliskova, Victoria Mboko

Tactical fingerprint

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

Point-ending shots36.5%
Forehand share63%
Unforced errors / shot15.5%
Wide serves · deuce51%
Deep returns38%
Run-around forehands13%
Through the middle31%
T serves · ad40%
Serve & volley1%
Wide serves · ad40%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
T serves · deuce34%
Points at net5%
Backhand slice6%
Chipped returns3%
FH down the line25%
BH down the line14%
1st serve in56%
Avg rally length3.2

Plays most like

  1. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Rebecca Marino 2018–2024 plan v
  3. Coco Vandeweghe 2014–2018 plan v
  4. Jule Niemeier 2021–2025 plan v
  5. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Caroline Garcia 2013–2025 plan v
  7. Lulu Sun 2022–2025 plan v
  8. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches