RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 36 charted matches · 1996–2007

Martina Hingis

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.2% ±2.9 raw 55.0% · tour 56.3% · 2,581 points
Return points won 49.2% ±2.9 raw 47.9% · tour 43.7% · 2,535 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 +0.18 ±0.09 better than 83% of WTA · raw +0.18
Shot selection +0.09 ±0.11 better than 54% of WTA · raw +0.08
Execution +1.18 ±0.34 better than 94% of WTA · raw +1.08
Tactical adaptability −0.20 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 36 matches
Adaptation speed −0.17 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.55 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 59% 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 14,497 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Martina Hingis 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 · 925 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 48.4%±4.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 49.4%±5.4 43.3%
BH down the line 18% 43.3%±5.9 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 36.2%±9.3 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 28.6%±9.2 34.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 23.7%±12.6 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 871 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 40.6%±4.3 46.7%
FH down the line 33% 47.2%±4.7 44.9%
FH through the middle 20% 41.5%±5.8 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 3% 17.8%±9.5 29.2%
FH down the line + approach 3% 64.5%±12.1 65.4%
FH slice down the line 2% 16.8%±10.4 24.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 649 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 50.0%±5.7 52.2%
BH through the middle 16% 54.2%±7.3 46.2%
FH crosscourt 16% 56.5%±7.4 52.7%
BH down the line 12% 56.6%±8.2 50.0%
BH crosscourt 12% 48.6%±8.4 50.9%
FH through the middle 10% 58.1%±8.7 45.8%
FH down the line + approach 4% 71.1%±11.0 68.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 492 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 53.7%±5.2 47.9%
BH through the middle 23% 46.2%±7.2 42.7%
BH down the line 15% 49.3%±8.4 46.7%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 39.1%±11.0 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 6% 22.9%±9.7 33.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 22.7%±12.6 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Martina Hingis's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 310 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 34% ▼ 62% / 66%
Body 18% 20% 51% / 57%
T 34% 46% ▲ 67% / 68%

1,253 normal · 71 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 60% ▲ 59% / 66%
Body 12% 14% 57% / 56%
T 37% 26% ▼ 62% / 64%

996 normal · 239 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
Wide47% 57.3%±3.2 n=618 62% ▲
Body18% 49.4%±5.0 n=243 3% ▼
T35% 55.3%±3.7 n=463 35%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.050): serve wide more. Gap 2.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 54.4%±3.1 n=654 48% ▼
Body12% 56.7%±6.1 n=149 7% ▼
T35% 53.5%±3.8 n=432 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.71).
Optimal mix: ±0.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.47 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: −4.2±3.1 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. (1,031 repeats, 1,456 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 140 51% +7.4±6.3
1stAd courtT 321 41% +6.0±4.3
1stAd courtWide 292 40% +6.0±4.5
1stDeuce courtBody 167 46% +3.5±5.8
1stDeuce courtT 215 39% +6.5±5.1
1stDeuce courtWide 426 41% +6.6±3.8
2ndAd courtBody 146 59% +3.8±6.1
2ndAd courtT 110 56% +1.0±6.9
2ndAd courtWide 196 53% −0.9±5.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 176 60% +5.9±5.6
2ndDeuce courtT 92 61% +5.3±7.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 217 53% −0.3±5.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 61% · +3.3±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 4.7% · won 56% · −1.8±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 55% · −2.6±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 52% · −5.2±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 52% · −5.2±9.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, mid used 2.0% · won 61% · +13.8±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 5.6% · won 54% · +6.3±6.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 54% · +6.6±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.3% · won 51% · +3.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line, mid used 4.0% · won 51% · +3.2±7.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.3% · won 54% · +5.8±5.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 54% · +5.8±7.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 55% · +6.9±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 3.6% · won 53% · +4.8±6.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 56% · +7.3±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 56% · +7.5±7.7 vs own baseline · +5.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jana Novotna (13/29), Steffi Graf (14/27)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 58% · +10.0±10.9 vs own baseline · +19.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +9.2±11.1 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → BH down the line used 0.2% · won 60% · +11.9±12.7 vs own baseline · +29.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +6.3±9.3 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (3/7), Jennifer Capriati (4/8)
  6. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH through the middle used 0.2% · won 59% · +10.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +28.1 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 backhand · return+5.5523
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+2.7128
FH to the middle · return+2.2528
BH to their backhand · return+2.0324
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+1.9178

Most exposed to

BH slice to their forehand · rally−5.9188
BH slice to their backhand · rally−5.0356
FH to their forehand · return−4.4388
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.6241
FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.1273

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.

FH down the line44%
Wide serves · ad53%
Avg rally length4.8
1st serve in67%
BH down the line26%
Points at net11%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Serve & volley4%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
T serves · deuce35%
T serves · ad35%
Backhand slice10%
Chipped returns5%
Run-around forehands1%
Point-ending shots19.0%
Through the middle24%
Forehand share48%
Unforced errors / shot7.0%
Deep returns22%

Plays most like

  1. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Jelena Jankovic 2004–2016 plan v
  3. Mary Pierce 1994–2005 plan v
  4. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Agnieszka Radwanska 2007–2018 plan v
  6. Svetlana Kuznetsova 2004–2021 plan v
  7. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v
  8. Victoria Azarenka 2009–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Mirra Andreeva 2022–2026
  2. Elise Mertens 2018–2026
  3. Simona Halep 2013–2022

Charted matches