RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 27 charted matches · 2010–2017

Lucie Safarova

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.9% ±2.7 raw 61.4% · tour 56.3% · 1,984 points
Return points won 44.1% ±2.8 raw 40.3% · tour 43.7% · 1,954 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 ±0.08 better than 31% of WTA · raw −0.13
Shot selection +0.28 ±0.10 better than 76% of WTA · raw +0.26
Execution −0.17 ±0.48 better than 53% of WTA · raw −0.26
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 27 matches
Adaptation speed +0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.23 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 4% 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 9,249 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lucie Safarova 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 · 548 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 50.3%±6.6 52.7%
FH through the middle 20% 50.5%±7.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 19% 47.4%±7.3 46.2%
FH down the line 16% 51.8%±7.9 52.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 44.3%±8.5 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 46.7%±10.6 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 469 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 36% 38.3%±5.8 43.3%
BH crosscourt 27% 49.3%±6.8 47.6%
BH down the line 26% 42.5%±6.8 46.8%
BH slice down the line 5% 24.6%±10.9 31.7%
BH slice through the middle 4% 36.3%±12.4 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 393 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 46% 50.9%±5.8 46.7%
FH down the line 28% 39.2%±7.0 44.9%
FH through the middle 26% 42.1%±7.3 41.3%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 332 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 52.6%±7.7 52.3%
FH down the line 18% 63.2%±8.9 53.0%
BH through the middle 17% 44.5%±9.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 54.1%±9.9 46.5%
BH down the line 11% 50.2%±10.8 50.6%
BH crosscourt 9% 52.3%±11.6 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Lucie Safarova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 176 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 54% ▲ 70% / 66%
Body 6% 2% 54% / 57%
T 57% 44% ▼ 70% / 68%

995 normal · 41 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 45% 68% / 66%
Body 7% 4% 52% / 56%
T 53% 51% 69% / 64%

808 normal · 135 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
Wide38% 61.0%±3.9 n=389 28% ▼
Body6% 60.5%±8.4 n=62 0% ▼
T56% 62.2%±3.2 n=585 72% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.89).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 63.0%±3.9 n=384 56% ▲
Body6% 53.3%±8.6 n=61 0% ▼
T53% 61.1%±3.5 n=498 44% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.11).
Optimal mix: +0.6 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: −4.4±3.7 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. (861 repeats, 1,064 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 124 47% +3.0±6.6
1stAd courtT 228 31% −4.3±4.7
1stAd courtWide 205 30% −4.9±4.9
1stDeuce courtBody 132 36% −6.3±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 202 30% −2.1±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 297 36% +1.8±4.4
2ndAd courtBody 178 47% −8.2±5.7
2ndAd courtT 116 52% −2.6±6.8
2ndAd courtWide 77 60% +6.3±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 190 47% −7.9±5.5
2ndDeuce courtT 59 58% +2.2±8.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 139 54% +0.2±6.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 63% · −1.6±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 63% · −2.2±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.6% · won 62% · −3.4±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 61% · −4.2±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 58% · −6.7±8.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.6% · won 61% · +17.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, deep used 2.1% · won 62% · +18.7±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.3% · won 59% · +15.6±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 57% · +13.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 50% · +6.6±9.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 56% · +9.7±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.9% · won 51% · +4.4±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 51% · +4.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.9% · won 50% · +3.3±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 51% · +4.2±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.4±12.4 vs own baseline · +16.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.4±12.4 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +6.6±12.6 vs own baseline · +15.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 54% · +5.5±12.8 vs own baseline · +21.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 52% · +3.4±10.3 vs own baseline · −0.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elena Dementieva (2/8), Ana Ivanovic (5/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 1.0% · won 52% · +3.4±10.3 vs own baseline · +8.2 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 backhand · return +1+2.6206
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.4165
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.1135
BH to their forehand · serve +1+1.9131
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.9384

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−4.8160
BH to their forehand · return−3.0226
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.3380
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.5190
FH to their backhand · return +1−1.3175

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 · deuce56%
T serves · ad53%
Forehand share58%
Deep returns39%
BH down the line26%
Point-ending shots27.2%
Unforced errors / shot11.6%
Through the middle31%
FH down the line29%
Wide serves · ad41%
Serve & volley0%
1st serve in62%
Run-around forehands5%
Wide serves · deuce38%
Backhand slice9%
Points at net5%
Chipped returns4%
Avg rally length3.6
Drop shots / shot0.5%

Plays most like

  1. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  2. Garbine Muguruza 2013–2023 plan v
  3. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  4. Robin Montgomery 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  6. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Lulu Sun 2022–2025 plan v
  8. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches