RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 43 charted matches · 2015–2025

Marketa Vondrousova

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.2% ±2.6 raw 57.1% · tour 56.3% · 2,857 points
Return points won 48.2% ±2.7 raw 45.0% · tour 43.7% · 2,913 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 47% of WTA · raw −0.04
Shot selection −0.68 ±0.17 better than 7% of WTA · raw −0.68
Execution +0.63 ±0.43 better than 83% of WTA · raw +0.62
Tactical adaptability −0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 43 matches
Adaptation speed −0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.99 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 11% 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 15,733 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Marketa Vondrousova 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 · 1,049 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 44.9%±3.4 46.7%
FH through the middle 21% 45.2%±5.2 41.3%
FH down the line 10% 39.6%±7.3 44.9%
FH slice crosscourt 8% 35.6%±7.7 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 5% 34.6%±9.4 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 865 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 47.3%±4.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 30% 42.0%±4.9 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 14% 45.0%±6.9 34.4%
BH down the line 7% 37.2%±8.9 46.8%
BH slice down the line 5% 37.9%±10.4 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 47.0%±12.0 40.4%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 52.1%±13.0 49.1%
BH lob through the middle 2% 26.7%±11.7 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 764 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 36% 57.5%±4.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 43.4%±6.5 45.8%
BH through the middle 13% 50.2%±7.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 51.1%±7.8 50.9%
FH down the line 7% 55.9%±9.4 52.2%
BH drop shot down the line 5% 50.7%±10.4 47.1%
BH down the line 5% 45.0%±10.6 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 2% 45.6%±13.8 44.8%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 492 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 51.3%±6.1 54.0%
BH through the middle 17% 48.3%±8.1 46.3%
FH through the middle 16% 41.3%±8.2 45.5%
BH crosscourt 11% 58.0%±9.4 52.5%
BH drop shot down the line 9% 62.2%±10.0 54.1%
FH down the line 6% 56.4%±11.7 53.3%
BH down the line 3% 51.9%±13.5 51.0%
BH drop shot through the middle 2% 53.1%±14.5 54.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Marketa Vondrousova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 312 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 22% 20% 68% / 66%
Body 21% 17% 61% / 57%
T 57% 63% 63% / 68%

1,406 normal · 83 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 52% 65% / 66%
Body 18% 15% 58% / 56%
T 32% 33% 69% / 64%

1,133 normal · 229 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
Wide22% 58.7%±4.3 n=327 37% ▲
Body21% 55.2%±4.4 n=312 6% ▼
T57% 54.9%±2.8 n=850 57%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide51% 58.8%±3.0 n=690 55% ▲
Body17% 56.8%±5.0 n=234 2% ▼
T32% 58.6%±3.7 n=438 43% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.82).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: +1.5±3.9 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. (979 repeats, 1,786 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 184 44% +0.1±5.6
1stAd courtT 371 37% +1.8±4.0
1stAd courtWide 280 36% +1.8±4.5
1stDeuce courtBody 201 41% −1.6±5.3
1stDeuce courtT 332 35% +2.6±4.1
1stDeuce courtWide 425 39% +4.9±3.8
2ndAd courtBody 258 51% −4.5±4.8
2ndAd courtT 177 60% +5.1±5.6
2ndAd courtWide 117 54% +0.9±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 256 58% +3.4±4.8
2ndDeuce courtT 61 58% +2.0±8.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 236 56% +2.3±5.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 64% · +2.0±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 63% · +1.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 59% · −2.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 59% · −3.3±6.4 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 51% · −10.7±9.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.6% · won 60% · +13.5±7.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.2% · won 55% · +8.6±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 52% · +5.4±7.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH slice through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 49% · +3.0±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.4% · won 48% · +1.8±6.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 54% · +7.7±6.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH drop shot down the line used 1.3% · won 55% · +8.4±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 51% · +4.3±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 11.5% · won 49% · +2.3±4.1 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 49% · +2.3±6.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 53% · +5.5±6.1 vs own baseline · +3.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Linda Fruhvirtova (2/6), Petra Martic (3/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH drop shot down the line used 0.6% · won 57% · +9.2±10.2 vs own baseline · +14.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +10.2±12.4 vs own baseline · +23.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +7.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +13.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → BH through the middle return, short → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +8.3±11.8 vs own baseline · +8.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → FH down the line → FH slice crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +7.1±11.7 vs own baseline · +25.8 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 slice to their backhand · return+4.8148
FH to their backhand · return +1+4.5429
FH slice to their backhand · rally+3.2163
BH to their forehand · return+2.6404
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.4228

Most exposed to

BH slice to their forehand · rally−1.7125
BH to the middle · return +1−1.7237
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−1.6236
BH to the middle · rally−1.4614
BH to the middle · return−0.8807

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.37, Caroline Wozniacki +1.83, Angelique Kerber +1.44, Daria Kasatkina +1.33, Maja Chwalinska +1.20

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.93, Marie Bouzkova +2.72, Sara Errani +2.67, Elina Avanesyan +2.32, Magdalena Frech +2.28

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Angelique Kerber, Tatjana Maria, Daria Kasatkina, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce57%
Drop shots / shot4.0%
Chipped returns28%
Forehand share59%
Wide serves · ad51%
Avg rally length4.4
Through the middle31%
Backhand slice22%
Deep returns32%
Serve & volley0%
Points at net6%
1st serve in61%
T serves · ad32%
Run-around forehands3%
Point-ending shots20.3%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%
BH down the line15%
Wide serves · deuce22%
FH down the line17%

Plays most like

  1. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Tiantsoa Sarah Rakotomanga Rajaonah 2025–2025 plan v
  3. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Magdalena Frech 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Ana Bogdan 2019–2024 plan v
  7. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  8. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches