RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 70 charted matches · 2014–2026

Madison Keys

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.9% ±2.5 raw 60.8% · tour 56.3% · 4,611 points
Return points won 45.5% ±2.6 raw 42.4% · tour 43.7% · 4,756 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 +0.06 ±0.06 better than 67% of WTA · raw +0.06
Shot selection +0.34 ±0.10 better than 83% of WTA · raw +0.33
Execution −0.69 ±0.38 better than 28% of WTA · raw −0.76
Tactical adaptability +0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 68 matches
Adaptation speed −0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.58 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 54% 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 21,562 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Madison Keys 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 backhand side

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,302 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 45.7%±3.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 40.0%±4.4 43.3%
BH down the line 17% 39.5%±5.2 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 35.9%±7.7 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 26.7%±7.4 34.4%
FH inside-out 4% 55.0%±9.8 52.5%
FH through the middle 2% 45.9%±11.8 45.1%
FH inside-in 2% 51.4%±12.3 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,206 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 56.7%±4.4 52.7%
FH down the line 23% 47.3%±4.8 52.2%
FH through the middle 19% 49.7%±5.2 45.8%
BH through the middle 12% 40.4%±6.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 8% 51.1%±7.8 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 39.8%±7.7 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 2% 69.8%±11.4 68.6%
BH slice through the middle 1% 45.1%±14.7 44.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 899 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 42.5%±4.1 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 38.0%±5.4 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 40.2%±5.8 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 31.9%±8.7 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 30.0%±9.9 31.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 22.5%±11.6 24.3%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 797 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 20% 55.0%±6.1 52.3%
FH through the middle 20% 42.9%±6.1 46.5%
FH down the line 20% 52.3%±6.1 53.0%
BH through the middle 15% 38.0%±6.7 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 52.5%±8.1 50.6%
BH crosscourt 7% 51.5%±9.3 50.8%
FH down the line + approach 2% 67.1%±12.7 69.2%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 68.9%±13.7 66.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Madison Keys's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 437 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 47% 69% / 66%
Body 13% 16% 54% / 57%
T 37% 38% 78% / 68%

2,308 normal · 101 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 46% 65% / 66%
Body 11% 8% 54% / 56%
T 49% 46% 71% / 64%

1,858 normal · 336 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
Wide50% 59.9%±2.3 n=1,201 48% ▼
Body14% 53.9%±4.3 n=326 0% ▼
T37% 65.0%±2.6 n=882 52% ▲

Off equilibrium (p < 0.001): serve T more. Gap 4.0 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 60.0%±2.6 n=902 37% ▼
Body11% 55.0%±5.1 n=231 0% ▼
T48% 62.9%±2.4 n=1,061 63% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.029): serve T more. Gap 2.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.24 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: +1.0±2.5 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. (1,786 repeats, 2,677 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 307 44% +0.1±4.4
1stAd courtT 461 35% −1.0±3.5
1stAd courtWide 704 36% +1.2±2.9
1stDeuce courtBody 456 43% −0.1±3.7
1stDeuce courtT 655 33% +1.2±3.0
1stDeuce courtWide 491 30% −3.6±3.3
2ndAd courtBody 306 56% +1.4±4.5
2ndAd courtT 135 49% −6.2±6.4
2ndAd courtWide 361 52% −1.9±4.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 417 54% −0.9±3.9
2ndDeuce courtT 305 58% +1.8±4.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 151 57% +3.2±6.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 60% · −4.9±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 58% · −6.1±6.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 58% · −6.0±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 57% · −7.2±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.3% · won 59% · −5.9±5.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 55% · +13.9±6.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.1% · won 53% · +11.9±6.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 50% · +9.2±5.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 51% · +10.0±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 47% · +6.3±6.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 58% · +13.4±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 50% · +5.5±5.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 52% · +7.2±6.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 51% · +5.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 49% · +4.2±7.4 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 Keys wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +11.8±9.1 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (3/6)
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +13.2±10.6 vs own baseline · +12.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 56% · +9.6±9.4 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (4/6)
  4. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 57% · +10.5±11.3 vs own baseline · +13.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +5.9±8.7 vs own baseline · +0.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sloane Stephens (4/7)
  6. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 55% · +8.0±10.8 vs own baseline · +5.5 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 2nd serve · deuce court+3.2199
T 1st serve · deuce court+2.7872
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.4369
T 1st serve · ad court+2.31,049
FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.0713

Most exposed to

T 2nd serve · ad court−2.4129
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.3354
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−1.8150
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.8300
FH slice to the middle · return−1.1160

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.90, Caroline Wozniacki +1.48, Tatjana Maria +1.19, Daria Kasatkina +0.95, Angelique Kerber +0.87

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.04, Angelique Kerber +0.67, Marie Bouzkova +0.48, Elina Avanesyan +0.44, Katie Volynets +0.13

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Serena Williams, Caroline Wozniacki, Ons Jabeur, Karolina Muchova, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot15.2%
Point-ending shots33.3%
Wide serves · deuce50%
T serves · ad48%
Run-around forehands14%
BH down the line26%
Forehand share57%
FH down the line32%
Deep returns36%
1st serve in64%
Through the middle30%
Wide serves · ad41%
T serves · deuce37%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice13%
Chipped returns7%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
Avg rally length3.5

Plays most like

  1. Dayana Yastremska 2013–2026 plan v
  2. Kaia Kanepi 2013–2023 plan v
  3. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  4. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v
  6. Julia Goerges 2009–2020 plan v
  7. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  8. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010

Charted matches