RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 74 charted matches · 2016–2026

Magda Linette

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.4% ±2.5 raw 57.2% · tour 56.3% · 5,193 points
Return points won 43.2% ±2.6 raw 39.4% · tour 43.7% · 5,072 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 +0.27 ±0.05 better than 93% of WTA · raw +0.26
Shot selection +0.36 ±0.07 better than 84% of WTA · raw +0.35
Execution −0.20 ±0.32 better than 48% of WTA · raw −0.23
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 74 matches
Adaptation speed +0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.20 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 94% 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 26,645 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Magda Linette 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 · 1,660 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 41.8%±2.7 46.7%
FH down the line 20% 42.5%±4.3 44.9%
FH through the middle 18% 35.2%±4.4 41.3%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 30.4%±8.0 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 31.7%±9.0 29.2%
FH down the line + approach 1% 71.3%±12.1 65.4%
FH slice down the line 1% 22.9%±12.6 24.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,622 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 46.0%±3.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 42.2%±3.6 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 41.1%±5.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 15.8%±6.9 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 36.6%±9.2 40.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 28.7%±11.3 31.7%
FH inside-out 1% 57.4%±14.0 52.5%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 65.9%±14.2 68.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,445 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 50.5%±3.8 52.7%
BH crosscourt 18% 47.4%±4.9 50.9%
BH through the middle 15% 46.4%±5.3 46.2%
FH down the line 14% 46.7%±5.5 52.2%
FH through the middle 11% 37.4%±6.0 45.8%
BH down the line 8% 46.6%±7.2 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 1% 69.5%±12.5 68.6%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 78.0%±12.1 69.7%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 871 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 46.5%±4.1 47.8%
BH through the middle 31% 40.8%±4.8 43.0%
BH down the line 13% 35.0%±6.8 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 5% 26.5%±9.5 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 35.8%±11.2 39.6%
BH slice down the line 2% 31.7%±12.6 28.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Magda Linette's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 571 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 47% 67% / 66%
Body 19% 17% 56% / 57%
T 38% 36% 68% / 68%

2,561 normal · 129 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 58% 64% 66% / 66%
Body 9% 8% 53% / 56%
T 33% 28% 63% / 64%

2,042 normal · 442 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
Wide43% 60.0%±2.3 n=1,148 58% ▲
Body19% 54.1%±3.5 n=516 4% ▼
T38% 57.3%±2.5 n=1,026 38%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.049): serve wide more. Gap 2.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide59% 56.7%±2.1 n=1,462 55% ▼
Body9% 55.9%±5.2 n=217 0% ▼
T32% 57.0%±2.8 n=805 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.95).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.53 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: −0.6±2.3 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. (1,828 repeats, 3,198 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 257 36% −7.9±4.7
1stAd courtT 587 33% −3.0±3.1
1stAd courtWide 629 32% −2.2±3.0
1stDeuce courtBody 415 36% −6.3±3.8
1stDeuce courtT 516 28% −4.4±3.2
1stDeuce courtWide 708 33% −1.1±2.8
2ndAd courtBody 434 48% −6.9±3.8
2ndAd courtT 124 53% −2.1±6.6
2ndAd courtWide 389 51% −2.9±4.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 568 49% −5.1±3.4
2ndDeuce courtT 218 56% −0.5±5.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 222 54% +0.6±5.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 59% · −0.8±6.3 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 55% · −5.0±6.7 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.7% · won 55% · −5.0±6.4 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 52% · −7.3±6.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 52% · −7.6±5.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.1% · won 53% · +14.6±6.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 55% · +16.0±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.4% · won 49% · +10.1±5.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.4% · won 49% · +9.7±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 48% · +9.4±6.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 48% · +4.1±4.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 50% · +6.9±7.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.8% · won 47% · +3.8±4.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 47% · +3.7±4.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.8% · won 47% · +3.2±4.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 51% · +6.3±5.7 vs own baseline · +2.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (7/19), Moyuka Uchijima (7/14)
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +9.5±8.0 vs own baseline · −0.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Moyuka Uchijima (3/6), Magdalena Frech (4/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +9.7±8.1 vs own baseline · +2.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (3/7), Iva Jovic (4/7)
  4. Body serve → BH through the middle return, deep → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 60% · +14.7±11.0 vs own baseline · +26.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 58% · +13.3±10.7 vs own baseline · +8.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +7.0±7.7 vs own baseline · +5.0 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

Body 2nd serve · deuce court+3.0662
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.8365
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.7507
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.5195
BH to the middle · serve +1+2.4619

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−4.1330
BH to their backhand · serve +1−3.2568
BH to their forehand · return +1−3.2238
FH to their backhand · rally−2.31,309
BH to their backhand · return−2.0816

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.82, Caroline Wozniacki +3.64, Angelique Kerber +3.05, Daria Kasatkina +2.98, Sara Errani +2.84

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.85, Angelique Kerber +1.35, Marie Bouzkova +1.25, Elina Avanesyan +1.07, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.02

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.

Wide serves · ad59%
Deep returns37%
Wide serves · deuce43%
T serves · deuce38%
Avg rally length4.1
Serve & volley0%
Point-ending shots23.3%
Points at net6%
Forehand share53%
1st serve in61%
Backhand slice9%
BH down the line18%
Unforced errors / shot9.6%
T serves · ad32%
Chipped returns5%
Through the middle26%
FH down the line26%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
Run-around forehands3%

Plays most like

  1. Linda Klimovicova 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v
  3. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Flavia Pennetta 2006–2015 plan v
  6. Anhelina Kalinina 2019–2025 plan v
  7. Elena Vesnina 2007–2016 plan v
  8. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches