RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 118 charted matches · 2003–2020

Maria Sharapova

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.2% ±2.3 raw 59.4% · tour 56.3% · 8,202 points
Return points won 47.5% ±2.4 raw 45.3% · tour 43.7% · 8,324 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 +0.20 ±0.04 better than 85% of WTA · raw +0.20
Shot selection +0.35 ±0.06 better than 83% of WTA · raw +0.34
Execution −0.22 ±0.24 better than 47% of WTA · raw −0.28
Tactical adaptability +0.21 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 115 matches
Adaptation speed +0.19 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.22 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 92% 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 38,963 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Maria Sharapova 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 · 2,326 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 54.5%±3.2 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 58.3%±3.8 52.2%
FH through the middle 15% 49.1%±4.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 44.0%±4.5 46.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 56.1%±4.5 50.9%
BH down the line 9% 49.1%±5.5 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 1% 81.6%±9.5 68.6%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 66.7%±13.7 66.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 2,268 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 45% 47.9%±2.6 46.7%
FH down the line 26% 44.1%±3.3 44.9%
FH through the middle 23% 41.5%±3.5 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 2% 29.5%±8.7 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 26.8%±10.3 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 1% 68.4%±11.5 65.4%
FH lob through the middle 0% 29.6%±13.7 29.4%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 2,026 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 49.5%±2.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 45.6%±3.5 43.3%
BH down the line 20% 46.0%±4.0 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 2% 38.0%±10.8 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 1% 30.4%±11.5 40.4%
FH inside-in 1% 62.2%±12.3 55.6%
BH slice down the line 1% 28.0%±12.1 31.7%
FH inside-out 1% 54.2%±13.7 52.5%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,360 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 29% 48.5%±4.1 52.3%
FH down the line 18% 60.2%±5.0 53.0%
BH crosscourt 15% 58.5%±5.5 50.8%
FH through the middle 14% 38.4%±5.4 46.5%
BH through the middle 14% 47.9%±5.7 46.2%
BH down the line 9% 60.2%±6.7 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Maria Sharapova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 832 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 41% 69% / 66%
Body 16% 19% 60% / 57%
T 36% 41% 74% / 68%

4,013 normal · 200 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 33% 34% 69% / 66%
Body 10% 10% 57% / 56%
T 56% 56% 68% / 64%

3,248 normal · 632 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
Wide48% 60.3%±1.8 n=2,023 49%
Body16% 57.3%±3.1 n=679 1% ▼
T36% 61.3%±2.0 n=1,511 50% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide33% 58.7%±2.2 n=1,294 32% ▼
Body10% 54.8%±3.9 n=401 0% ▼
T56% 59.1%±1.7 n=2,185 68% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.20).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.67 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: −0.9±1.9 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. (3,188 repeats, 4,669 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 517 46% +2.6±3.5
1stAd courtT 1,058 36% +0.9±2.4
1stAd courtWide 854 33% −1.5±2.6
1stDeuce courtBody 583 45% +2.2±3.3
1stDeuce courtT 972 32% +0.1±2.4
1stDeuce courtWide 1,064 38% +4.2±2.4
2ndAd courtBody 606 58% +2.7±3.2
2ndAd courtT 396 56% +0.5±4.0
2ndAd courtWide 535 53% −0.8±3.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 755 59% +4.7±2.9
2ndDeuce courtT 498 58% +1.9±3.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 396 59% +5.4±3.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 63% · −2.0±5.7 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 62% · −2.7±5.6 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 59% · −6.3±6.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 60% · −5.2±4.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 58% · −7.0±5.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 60% · +15.5±5.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.5% · won 59% · +14.3±5.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 55% · +10.5±5.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 57% · +11.8±5.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 56% · +11.0±5.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 61% · +12.4±5.8 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 55% · +6.4±3.8 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.4% · won 54% · +4.9±3.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 58% · +9.2±6.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 55% · +6.6±5.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 63% · +12.8±7.3 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (4/10), Serena Williams (5/10)
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 58% · +7.9±6.3 vs own baseline · +2.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (5/15), Tatiana Golovin (4/9)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 61% · +11.3±8.7 vs own baseline · +6.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (5/7), Amelie Mauresmo (5/7)
  4. T serve → FH through the middle return, short → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 66% · +15.7±10.6 vs own baseline · +25.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (4/6)
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 61% · +10.8±8.8 vs own baseline · +13.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (2/7), Agnieszka Radwanska (5/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 56% · +6.1±6.4 vs own baseline · +4.8 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 volley to their forehand · rally+3.5178
BH to their forehand · return+2.9579
T 1st serve · ad court+0.92,148
FH to their backhand · rally+0.71,988
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.41,980

Most exposed to

T 2nd serve · ad court−2.1390
FH to their backhand · return−1.3629
BH to their backhand · serve +1−1.0811
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.7979
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.6738

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.

T serves · ad56%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Point-ending shots28.1%
FH down the line33%
Forehand share56%
Unforced errors / shot11.5%
BH down the line22%
Deep returns34%
1st serve in63%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce36%
Points at net5%
Run-around forehands3%
Avg rally length3.8
Chipped returns4%
Drop shots / shot0.8%
Backhand slice4%
Through the middle25%
Wide serves · ad33%

Plays most like

  1. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  3. Na Li 2008–2014 plan v
  4. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  5. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v
  7. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Chris Evert 1979–1989

Charted matches