RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 8 charted matches · 2003–2013

Marion Bartoli

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 55.8% ±3.8 raw 50.9% · tour 56.3% · 452 points
Return points won 42.7% ±3.8 raw 37.5% · tour 43.7% · 448 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 −0.05 ±0.28 better than 45% of WTA · raw −0.08
Shot selection +0.45 ±0.27 better than 93% of WTA · raw +0.40
Execution +0.11 ±1.26 better than 66% of WTA · raw −0.25

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 2,561 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Marion Bartoli 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 · 182 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 19% 45.7%±11.1 45.8%
BH crosscourt 19% 44.0%±11.0 50.9%
FH crosscourt 19% 49.2%±11.2 52.7%
BH through the middle 18% 40.9%±11.2 46.2%
FH down the line 13% 37.4%±12.0 52.2%
BH down the line 7% 53.1%±14.5 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 155 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 47.8%±8.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 32% 45.9%±9.9 43.3%
BH down the line 23% 38.8%±10.8 46.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 138 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 41.5%±8.5 46.7%
FH through the middle 28% 32.6%±10.0 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 51.0%±11.7 44.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 104 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 58% 62.0%±8.9 47.9%
BH through the middle 29% 41.1%±11.4 42.7%
BH down the line 13% 45.1%±14.0 46.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Marion Bartoli's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 72 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 53% 63% / 66%
Body 16% 16% 49% / 57%
T 35% 32% 61% / 68%

217 normal · 19 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 29% 21% ▼ 63% / 66%
Body 23% 43% ▲ 52% / 56%
T 48% 36% ▼ 58% / 64%

162 normal · 53 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% 53.4%±6.8 n=117 50%
Body16% 46.3%±9.9 n=38 1% ▼
T34% 55.3%±7.8 n=81 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.27).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide27% 51.9%±8.8 n=58 42% ▲
Body28% 48.4%±8.6 n=61 13% ▼
T45% 47.0%±7.3 n=96 45%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.67).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.78 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: −1.6±3.7 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. (173 repeats, 262 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 39 38% −6.0±9.6
1stAd courtT 54 29% −6.2±8.2
1stAd courtWide 34 27% −7.4±9.1
1stDeuce courtBody 33 46% +3.1±10.3
1stDeuce courtT 46 34% +1.6±8.9
1stDeuce courtWide 65 25% −8.5±7.4
2ndAd courtBody 52 51% −4.4±9.1
2ndAd courtT 16 58% +2.6±12.0
2ndAd courtWide 20 56% +2.6±11.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 41 44% −10.3±9.7
2ndDeuce courtT 20 54% −2.4±11.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 26 57% +3.6±10.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Not enough data

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 6.5% · won 50% · +6.4±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 8.6% · won 47% · +3.1±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 48% · +3.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.1% · won 46% · +2.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 44% · +0.5±10.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 49% · +5.5±9.8 vs own baseline · +3.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Venus Williams (1/6), Ana Ivanovic (3/7)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 46% · +2.7±10.7 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (7/18), Dinara Safina (4/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 47% · +3.1±11.7 vs own baseline · +0.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (4/12), Dinara Safina (6/9)
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 45% · +1.1±13.0 vs own baseline · +2.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 44% · +0.6±10.2 vs own baseline · −3.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (6/16), Dinara Safina (8/14)
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 44% · +0.3±12.5 vs own baseline · −2.3 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 to their forehand · rally+2.4203
FH to the middle · rally+1.0126
BH to the middle · rally+0.6138
BH to their backhand · rally−0.3210

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · rally−6.5167
FH to their backhand · rally−3.1134
BH to the middle · rally−1.3136
FH to their forehand · rally−0.1196
FH to the middle · return+1.5126

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Yulia Putintseva, Elsa Jacquemot, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce50%
Avg rally length4.7
Through the middle33%
T serves · ad45%
BH down the line22%
1st serve in63%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Deep returns32%
T serves · deuce34%
Drop shots / shot0.9%
Unforced errors / shot9.1%
Point-ending shots20.5%
Chipped returns3%
Backhand slice2%
Run-around forehands1%
Forehand share48%
Wide serves · ad27%
FH down the line21%

Plays most like

  1. Anna Karolina Schmiedlova 2014–2024 plan v
  2. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  4. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006 plan v
  5. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002 plan v
  6. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026
  2. Antonia Ruzic 2024–2026
  3. Iva Jovic 2024–2026

Charted matches