RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2014–2023

Madison Brengle

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.2% ±3.3 raw 52.0% · tour 56.3% · 999 points
Return points won 46.8% ±3.3 raw 44.2% · tour 43.7% · 993 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 −0.26 ±0.16 better than 10% of WTA · raw −0.26
Shot selection −0.96 ±0.26 better than 4% of WTA · raw −0.96
Execution +1.35 ±0.51 better than 95% of WTA · raw +1.38
Tactical adaptability −0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed −0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.66 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 42% 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 5,628 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Madison Brengle 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 forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 397 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 45.9%±7.3 46.7%
FH down the line 22% 43.0%±7.9 44.9%
FH through the middle 22% 48.4%±8.0 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 16% 36.3%±8.6 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 34.3%±12.0 31.9%
FH lob through the middle 5% 28.6%±12.1 29.4%
FH slice down the line 3% 24.6%±12.5 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 335 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 45.9%±6.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 45.4%±7.6 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 47.3%±10.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 38.9%±11.8 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 42.7%±12.9 40.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 323 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 20% 50.9%±9.0 46.2%
FH down the line 18% 53.7%±9.2 52.2%
BH down the line 15% 54.3%±9.8 50.0%
FH through the middle 15% 47.3%±10.0 45.8%
BH crosscourt 15% 46.5%±10.0 50.9%
FH crosscourt 14% 46.2%±10.3 52.7%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 183 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 25% 44.8%±10.1 45.5%
BH through the middle 23% 56.9%±10.3 46.3%
BH crosscourt 20% 52.7%±11.0 52.5%
FH down the line 19% 58.6%±11.0 53.3%
FH crosscourt 7% 47.9%±14.3 54.0%
BH down the line 7% 55.1%±14.2 51.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Madison Brengle's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 141 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 28% 64% / 66%
Body 47% 50% 56% / 57%
T 25% 22% 59% / 68%

470 normal · 46 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 35% 59% / 66%
Body 46% 49% 56% / 56%
T 16% 16% 67% / 64%

368 normal · 95 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
Wide28% 57.4%±6.2 n=142 43% ▲
Body48% 50.5%±5.0 n=246 33% ▼
T25% 50.0%±6.5 n=128 24%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide37% 52.5%±5.8 n=173 37%
Body47% 49.2%±5.2 n=216 32% ▼
T16% 54.5%±8.0 n=74 31% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.49).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.87 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: −5.0±6.2 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. (398 repeats, 553 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 58 41% −2.8±8.6
1stAd courtT 106 39% +3.9±6.9
1stAd courtWide 104 32% −2.1±6.6
1stDeuce courtBody 76 36% −7.0±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 93 35% +3.3±7.1
1stDeuce courtWide 155 38% +4.5±5.9
2ndAd courtBody 93 58% +3.1±7.3
2ndAd courtT 35 62% +7.3±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 67 51% −3.0±8.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 92 58% +4.0±7.3
2ndDeuce courtT 47 43% −13.4±9.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 49 55% +0.8±9.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 58% · +1.3±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 56% · +0.1±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 56% · −0.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 5.8% · won 55% · −1.6±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.6% · won 54% · −2.1±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 57% · +5.9±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 56% · +4.5±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.5% · won 55% · +4.2±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.3% · won 54% · +3.4±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 50% · −1.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.3% · won 51% · +5.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 52% · +6.7±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 49% · +4.3±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 3.3% · won 48% · +3.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 48% · +2.9±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.4±12.3 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Flavia Pennetta (1/6), Andrea Petkovic (5/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +6.5±12.5 vs own baseline · +11.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 51% · +5.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ekaterina Alexandrova (4/9)
  4. Body serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +5.4±13.0 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 49% · +3.2±11.9 vs own baseline · +8.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrea Petkovic (6/8)
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 48% · +2.3±11.3 vs own baseline · +1.6 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

BH to the middle · serve +1+2.6151
FH to the middle · return+2.4186
FH to the middle · rally+2.3219
BH to the middle · return+2.2190
BH to their forehand · rally+2.1199

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.4161
BH to the middle · return−3.2255
BH to their backhand · return−3.2129
FH to their forehand · rally−1.6426
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.0122

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.8
1st serve in67%
Through the middle34%
Chipped returns17%
FH down the line31%
Serve & volley0%
Deep returns31%
Backhand slice11%
BH down the line19%
Wide serves · ad37%
Points at net5%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Forehand share51%
Run-around forehands0%
Unforced errors / shot7.5%
T serves · deuce25%
Point-ending shots15.8%
Wide serves · deuce28%
T serves · ad16%

Plays most like

  1. Lesia Tsurenko 2013–2024 plan v
  2. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  3. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Zarina Diyas 2014–2025 plan v
  5. Caroline Wozniacki 2008–2024 plan v
  6. Sara Errani 2011–2025 plan v
  7. Kateryna Baindl 2017–2023 plan v
  8. Elina Avanesyan 2023–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001
  3. Martina Hingis 1996–2007

Charted matches