RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 41 charted matches · 2018–2026

Marie Bouzkova

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.1% ±2.8 raw 55.1% · tour 56.3% · 2,753 points
Return points won 44.0% ±2.8 raw 39.8% · tour 43.7% · 2,829 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 −0.04 ±0.07 better than 48% of WTA · raw −0.04
Shot selection +0.09 ±0.12 better than 54% of WTA · raw +0.08
Execution +0.73 ±0.39 better than 86% of WTA · raw +0.61
Tactical adaptability −0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 39 matches
Adaptation speed −0.16 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.65 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 15,703 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Marie Bouzkova 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 · 1,023 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 43.3%±3.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 40.3%±4.6 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 50.6%±6.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 34.7%±8.3 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 45.2%±9.7 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 25.2%±10.6 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 985 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 20% 39.2%±5.5 45.8%
FH down the line 18% 49.0%±5.8 52.2%
FH crosscourt 17% 50.0%±6.0 52.7%
BH through the middle 14% 46.7%±6.5 46.2%
BH crosscourt 14% 44.3%±6.5 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 50.6%±8.9 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 2% 78.4%±10.3 68.6%
BH slice through the middle 2% 37.1%±12.1 44.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 824 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 43.1%±4.4 46.7%
FH through the middle 29% 31.0%±4.7 41.3%
FH down the line 18% 39.4%±6.2 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 35.9%±9.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 29.2%±12.0 31.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 33.0%±12.9 24.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 565 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 43.2%±5.2 47.9%
BH through the middle 27% 45.1%±6.2 42.7%
BH down the line 15% 46.9%±8.1 46.7%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 42.4%±10.2 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 6% 32.8%±10.5 33.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 32.7%±14.1 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Marie Bouzkova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 339 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 57% 62% / 66%
Body 19% 13% 50% / 57%
T 29% 29% 65% / 68%

1,346 normal · 82 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 38% 61% / 66%
Body 21% 21% 53% / 56%
T 43% 41% 62% / 64%

1,066 normal · 257 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
Wide53% 55.4%±2.9 n=758 53%
Body18% 51.7%±4.8 n=261 3% ▼
T29% 58.8%±3.9 n=409 44% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide36% 53.2%±3.6 n=480 36%
Body21% 51.8%±4.7 n=281 6% ▼
T42% 57.1%±3.3 n=562 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.20).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.71 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: −1.4±3.4 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. (876 repeats, 1,793 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 183 40% −4.4±5.5
1stAd courtT 384 32% −3.5±3.8
1stAd courtWide 257 30% −4.7±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 215 38% −4.3±5.1
1stDeuce courtT 257 30% −2.3±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 421 31% −2.7±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 250 50% −5.2±4.9
2ndAd courtT 88 46% −8.8±7.5
2ndAd courtWide 193 53% −0.1±5.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 294 50% −4.3±4.6
2ndDeuce courtT 169 55% −0.8±5.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 111 57% +3.1±6.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · +0.2±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 56% · −0.9±7.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 55% · −2.5±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 53% · −4.5±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · −4.2±7.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 51% · +11.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 48% · +8.4±8.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 47% · +6.8±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.3% · won 45% · +4.8±8.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.3% · won 43% · +3.7±7.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.2% · won 50% · +8.2±6.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 51% · +8.8±7.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 52% · +9.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 52% · +9.2±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 47% · +5.1±7.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Marie Bouzkova 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 0.7% · won 53% · +8.8±8.9 vs own baseline · +3.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (4/8), Bianca Andreescu (4/7)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 50% · +6.3±7.8 vs own baseline · +3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (1/9), Elena Rybakina (2/6)
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 51% · +7.2±9.4 vs own baseline · +8.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (4/9), Mirra Andreeva (6/11)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 51% · +7.2±9.4 vs own baseline · +1.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (4/9), Elina Svitolina (4/9)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +7.4±10.1 vs own baseline · +0.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elina Svitolina (3/10)
  6. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +8.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +3.7 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 their forehand · serve +1+2.8193
FH to their backhand · return+2.7198
BH to the middle · serve +1+2.6331
BH to the middle · rally+2.5717
BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.4353

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.6383
BH to their forehand · serve +1−3.5222
BH to their forehand · rally−3.4528
FH to the middle · return−2.6655
BH to their forehand · return−2.5208

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +4.20, Caroline Wozniacki +4.14, Angelique Kerber +3.64, Daria Kasatkina +3.54, Linda Fruhvirtova +3.29

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.69, Angelique Kerber +2.39, Elina Avanesyan +2.06, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.96, Katie Volynets +1.94

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.

Wide serves · deuce53%
1st serve in67%
Avg rally length4.7
Through the middle33%
Points at net10%
T serves · ad42%
FH down the line30%
Serve & volley1%
Deep returns33%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Backhand slice14%
BH down the line20%
Chipped returns7%
Wide serves · ad36%
Run-around forehands3%
Forehand share50%
Point-ending shots18.7%
T serves · deuce29%
Unforced errors / shot8.1%

Plays most like

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  2. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  3. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Agnieszka Radwanska 2007–2018 plan v
  5. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  6. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches