RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 13 charted matches · 2019–2023

Martina Trevisan

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 52.7% ±3.4 raw 48.9% · tour 56.3% · 754 points
Return points won 46.3% ±3.4 raw 44.9% · tour 43.7% · 777 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 −0.17 ±0.15 better than 22% of WTA · raw −0.17
Shot selection +0.41 ±0.23 better than 91% of WTA · raw +0.42
Execution −0.41 ±0.87 better than 38% of WTA · raw −0.41
Tactical adaptability −0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 13 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.86 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 20% 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 4,576 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Martina Trevisan 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 · 336 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 28% 39.7%±7.5 43.3%
BH crosscourt 26% 47.7%±8.0 47.6%
BH down the line 19% 42.1%±8.9 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.3%±11.3 34.4%
FH inside-out 4% 48.5%±14.1 52.5%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 31.5%±13.5 40.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 307 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 48.5%±8.2 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 45.4%±9.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 17% 41.3%±9.5 45.8%
BH through the middle 13% 42.8%±10.6 46.2%
BH down the line 13% 54.2%±10.7 50.0%
BH crosscourt 8% 32.2%±11.6 50.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 251 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 59% 51.7%±6.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 17% 35.3%±9.9 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 46.6%±10.6 44.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 190 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 24% 44.8%±10.1 47.9%
BH through the middle 23% 45.3%±10.3 42.7%
BH down the line 14% 47.5%±12.0 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 12% 27.2%±11.2 33.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 39.8%±14.2 38.7%
FH inside-out 6% 60.7%±14.4 54.1%
BH lob through the middle 5% 39.6%±14.7 29.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +16 How much less varied Martina Trevisan's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 107 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 24% 18% 67% / 66%
Body 32% 36% 54% / 57%
T 45% 46% 52% / 68%

361 normal · 28 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 62% ▲ 55% / 66%
Body 29% 33% 48% / 56%
T 19% 5% ▼ 66% / 64%

284 normal · 79 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
Wide23% 52.4%±7.5 n=90 38% ▲
Body32% 51.4%±6.6 n=125 20% ▼
T45% 43.6%±5.7 n=174 42% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.10).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 47.4%±5.5 n=196 54%
Body30% 49.9%±7.0 n=108 15% ▼
T16% 54.7%±8.7 n=59 31% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.34).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.74 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: +3.9±7.1 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. (283 repeats, 443 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 66 46% +2.1±8.4
1stAd courtT 106 39% +3.2±6.9
1stAd courtWide 78 37% +2.9±7.7
1stDeuce courtBody 69 43% +0.6±8.2
1stDeuce courtT 44 37% +5.2±9.3
1stDeuce courtWide 136 33% −1.4±6.0
2ndAd courtBody 65 52% −2.9±8.4
2ndAd courtT 31 48% −6.7±10.5
2ndAd courtWide 27 58% +4.5±10.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 69 57% +2.5±8.2
2ndDeuce courtT 26 68% +11.5±10.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 54 49% −4.8±9.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 4.0% · won 56% · +5.4±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 3.6% · won 48% · −2.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 3.6% · won 48% · −2.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 48% · −2.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.6% · won 46% · −4.3±11.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.2% · won 55% · +2.5±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 7.8% · won 55% · +2.3±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH down the line, mid used 6.6% · won 51% · −1.0±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 6.1% · won 49% · −2.9±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 9.3% · won 52% · +7.7±7.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.9% · won 52% · +8.0±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 50% · +5.3±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 48% · +3.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 47% · +2.3±11.4 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 Trevisan wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 57% · +13.3±12.6 vs own baseline · +24.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Yulia Putintseva (6/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 49% · +5.8±8.4 vs own baseline · +3.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (5/12), Evgeniya Rodina (3/7)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.8% · won 51% · +7.3±12.6 vs own baseline · +8.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 48% · +4.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +0.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (1/6), Kiki Bertens (4/9)
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.9% · won 49% · +5.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +11.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (5/9)
  6. FH down the line → FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.9% · won 47% · +3.9±12.4 vs own baseline · +8.7 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 the middle · return+1.4172
FH to their backhand · rally+1.3407
BH to the middle · rally+0.6211
FH to the middle · rally+0.6177
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.5196

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−3.0219
FH to the middle · rally−2.4160
BH to their forehand · rally−1.2292
BH to the middle · rally−0.6251
FH to their backhand · rally−0.2378

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line29%
Forehand share59%
Wide serves · ad54%
Avg rally length4.8
T serves · deuce45%
Run-around forehands13%
Points at net10%
Deep returns35%
1st serve in63%
Through the middle30%
Drop shots / shot1.7%
Backhand slice14%
Serve & volley0%
Unforced errors / shot10.3%
Chipped returns7%
Point-ending shots21.1%
FH down the line25%
T serves · ad16%
Wide serves · deuce23%

Plays most like

  1. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 2020–2025 plan v
  3. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v
  4. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Mary Pierce 1994–2005

Charted matches