RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2012–2020

Monica Niculescu

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.5% ±3.2 raw 52.0% · tour 56.3% · 1,007 points
Return points won 45.5% ±3.2 raw 43.9% · tour 43.7% · 1,025 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 −0.30 ±0.13 better than 6% of WTA · raw −0.29
Shot selection −2.97 ±0.45 better than 0% of WTA · raw −2.95
Execution +2.03 ±0.57 better than 98% of WTA · raw +2.20
Tactical adaptability +0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.44 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 2% 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 6,283 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Monica Niculescu 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 · 408 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 35% 39.4%±6.3 43.3%
BH crosscourt 34% 47.8%±6.5 47.6%
BH down the line 11% 52.9%±10.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 42.6%±11.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 43.5%±13.4 40.4%
BH lob crosscourt 3% 39.2%±14.2 32.8%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 43.2%±14.4 49.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 360 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH slice crosscourt 31% 45.4%±7.1 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 28% 40.7%±7.4 29.2%
FH slice down the line 21% 44.5%±8.4 24.3%
FH crosscourt 6% 49.6%±12.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 5% 37.5%±12.9 41.3%
FH down the line 4% 49.9%±14.1 44.9%
FH slice down the line + approach 4% 63.1%±13.8 59.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 312 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 27% 43.0%±8.0 46.2%
FH slice down the line 13% 48.4%±10.7 47.9%
BH down the line 11% 41.8%±10.9 50.0%
FH slice through the middle 11% 45.8%±11.1 41.0%
FH slice crosscourt 11% 51.6%±11.1 42.0%
BH crosscourt 9% 49.4%±11.7 50.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 229 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH slice crosscourt 36% 46.9%±8.1 31.6%
FH slice through the middle 26% 46.7%±9.2 29.3%
FH slice down the line 14% 40.5%±11.2 25.3%
FH crosscourt 8% 40.5%±13.1 47.0%
FH through the middle 6% 36.2%±13.6 41.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Monica Niculescu's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 137 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 36% 58% / 66%
Body 39% 33% 52% / 57%
T 20% 31% ▲ 63% / 68%

485 normal · 36 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 42% ▲ 62% / 66%
Body 32% 22% ▼ 55% / 56%
T 36% 37% 57% / 64%

385 normal · 101 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
Wide41% 53.6%±5.3 n=213 41%
Body38% 46.5%±5.4 n=200 23% ▼
T21% 55.9%±7.0 n=108 36% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide34% 52.9%±5.9 n=167 38% ▲
Body30% 53.8%±6.2 n=144 14% ▼
T36% 51.5%±5.7 n=175 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.88).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 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: −3.3±6.1 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. (351 repeats, 628 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 62 41% −2.4±8.4
1stAd courtT 110 41% +5.7±6.8
1stAd courtWide 125 31% −3.9±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 58 46% +3.7±8.7
1stDeuce courtT 116 32% −0.2±6.3
1stDeuce courtWide 177 38% +3.8±5.5
2ndAd courtBody 92 59% +3.6±7.3
2ndAd courtT 50 54% −0.6±9.2
2ndAd courtWide 47 51% −2.8±9.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 71 58% +3.3±8.1
2ndDeuce courtT 35 61% +5.2±9.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 79 50% −4.1±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH slice down the line used 5.1% · won 55% · +0.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 55% · +0.1±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH slice through the middle used 3.5% · won 53% · −1.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH slice down the line used 3.8% · won 53% · −1.3±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 5.4% · won 54% · −1.1±9.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 53% · +4.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 53% · +4.5±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH slice through the middle, deep used 5.7% · won 50% · +1.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 50% · +1.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH slice crosscourt, deep used 8.2% · won 49% · +0.7±9.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle used 2.3% · won 60% · +10.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 5.7% · won 56% · +5.7±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH down the line used 3.1% · won 57% · +6.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 54% · +4.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH slice crosscourt → FH slice down the line used 3.4% · won 54% · +3.9±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH slice crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH slice down the line used 1.3% · won 58% · +10.1±10.7 vs own baseline · +27.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (3/6), Alize Cornet (5/6)
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 58% · +10.2±11.5 vs own baseline · +21.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alize Cornet (4/8)
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle used 1.3% · won 56% · +8.3±10.8 vs own baseline · +30.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alize Cornet (4/6)
  4. FH slice crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 56% · +8.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +20.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.9% · won 53% · +5.3±12.0 vs own baseline · +12.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alize Cornet (4/8)
  6. FH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH slice crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +5.6±12.5 vs own baseline · +27.9 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 · rally+6.6231
FH slice to their backhand · serve +1+6.2124
FH slice to their forehand · rally+5.1280
FH slice to their forehand · return+4.3129
FH slice to the middle · rally+3.3243

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−4.9132
FH to the middle · return−4.0243
FH to their forehand · return−2.7194
T 1st serve · deuce court−2.0182
BH to the middle · return−1.7167

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki, Emma Raducanu, Alexandra Eala, Daria Kasatkina

Tactical fingerprint

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

Chipped returns48%
Through the middle43%
Drop shots / shot4.0%
Avg rally length5.4
1st serve in72%
Points at net17%
FH down the line32%
Deep returns36%
Serve & volley3%
Wide serves · deuce41%
BH down the line20%
T serves · ad36%
Backhand slice11%
Wide serves · ad34%
Run-around forehands1%
Point-ending shots16.4%
Forehand share48%
Unforced errors / shot5.8%
T serves · deuce21%

Plays most like

  1. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  3. Saisai Zheng 2014–2020 plan v
  4. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Agnieszka Radwanska 2007–2018 plan v
  6. Madison Brengle 2014–2023 plan v
  7. Kateryna Baindl 2017–2023 plan v
  8. Sara Errani 2011–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001
  3. Gabriela Sabatini 1988–1995

Charted matches