RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 8 charted matches · 2015–2017

Louisa Chirico

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.2% ±3.7 raw 57.5% · tour 56.3% · 522 points
Return points won 45.5% ±3.8 raw 45.7% · tour 43.7% · 466 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 −0.13 ±0.14 better than 30% of WTA · raw −0.11
Shot selection +0.09 ±0.19 better than 54% of WTA · raw +0.12
Execution −0.96 ±1.01 better than 19% of WTA · raw −0.76

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 2,622 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Louisa Chirico 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 · 155 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 57.9%±9.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 21% 55.0%±11.2 45.8%
FH down the line 17% 51.0%±12.1 52.2%
BH through the middle 14% 39.6%±12.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 43.7%±13.4 50.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 142 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 52.4%±9.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 48.5%±10.9 43.3%
BH down the line 16% 40.4%±12.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 30.9%±13.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 114 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 49.8%±10.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 47.5%±11.7 41.3%
FH down the line 25% 53.0%±11.7 44.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 82 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 37% 45.2%±11.6 43.0%
BH crosscourt 35% 48.1%±11.7 47.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Louisa Chirico's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 59 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 31% ▼ 66% / 66%
Body 30% 19% ▼ 64% / 57%
T 27% 50% ▲ 68% / 68%

252 normal · 16 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 37% 67% / 66%
Body 26% 23% 55% / 56%
T 42% 40% 65% / 64%

205 normal · 43 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
Wide42% 56.5%±6.8 n=113 57% ▲
Body29% 59.4%±7.7 n=79 14% ▼
T28% 51.8%±8.0 n=76 29%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide33% 60.4%±7.6 n=81 41% ▲
Body26% 54.9%±8.4 n=64 11% ▼
T42% 61.5%±6.9 n=103 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.44).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.52 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: +2.3±4.6 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. (172 repeats, 328 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 29 44% +0.5±10.6
1stAd courtT 43 28% −7.2±8.7
1stAd courtWide 55 42% +7.1±8.8
1stDeuce courtBody 37 43% +0.4±9.9
1stDeuce courtT 42 38% +6.3±9.4
1stDeuce courtWide 48 31% −3.0±8.6
2ndAd courtBody 31 50% −5.0±10.5
2ndAd courtT 11 55% −0.1±12.8
2ndAd courtWide 51 54% +0.9±9.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 54 56% +1.9±8.9
2ndDeuce courtT 34 59% +3.1±10.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 22 52% −1.6±11.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 6.9% · won 55% · −8.8±11.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 26.4% · won 51% · +0.7±11.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.2% · won 58% · +4.6±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 6.0% · won 55% · +1.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.9% · won 52% · −1.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 49% · −4.5±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 46% · −7.5±11.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 58% · +7.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +21.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 57% · +6.1±12.9 vs own baseline · +9.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Maria Sakkari (3/6), Jessica Pegula (6/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 52% · +1.1±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Francesca Schiavone (4/6)

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 backhand · rally+1.6139
FH to their forehand · rally−2.2160

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−0.1157
BH to their backhand · rally+1.1122
FH to their backhand · rally+3.3142

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands14%
T serves · ad42%
Forehand share55%
Unforced errors / shot11.1%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Through the middle29%
Avg rally length4.1
FH down the line29%
BH down the line20%
Backhand slice14%
Serve & volley0%
Point-ending shots23.0%
Points at net6%
Chipped returns6%
Drop shots / shot0.6%
Wide serves · ad33%
T serves · deuce28%
Deep returns27%
1st serve in56%

Plays most like

  1. Anna Bondar 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  3. Jennifer Brady 2016–2023 plan v
  4. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v
  6. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  7. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches