RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 31 charted matches · 1990–2003

Monica Seles

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.8% ±2.9 raw 59.0% · tour 56.3% · 2,364 points
Return points won 46.1% ±3.0 raw 45.0% · tour 43.7% · 2,476 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 +0.28 ±0.09 better than 93% of WTA · raw +0.28
Shot selection +0.21 ±0.12 better than 67% of WTA · raw +0.21
Execution +0.14 ±0.30 better than 68% of WTA · raw +0.17
Tactical adaptability +0.26 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 31 matches
Adaptation speed +0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.59 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 53% 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 13,106 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Monica Seles 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 · 753 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 51.9%±4.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 41.3%±5.9 43.3%
BH down the line 17% 45.3%±6.7 46.8%
BH slice down the line 3% 22.8%±10.8 31.7%
BH slice through the middle 2% 26.7%±12.0 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 625 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 48.0%±4.3 46.7%
FH down the line 22% 46.5%±6.5 44.9%
FH through the middle 22% 40.8%±6.5 41.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 502 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 52.2%±6.9 52.7%
BH crosscourt 21% 60.8%±7.1 50.9%
FH down the line 18% 56.9%±7.8 52.2%
FH through the middle 15% 38.9%±8.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 45.7%±8.7 46.2%
BH down the line 8% 53.3%±10.6 50.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 359 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 46.7%±5.6 47.0%
FH down the line 22% 43.1%±8.2 46.4%
FH through the middle 19% 40.3%±8.5 41.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Monica Seles's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 231 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 29% 31% 67% / 66%
Body 16% 15% 57% / 57%
T 55% 55% 62% / 68%

1,161 normal · 55 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 48% 66% / 66%
Body 8% 9% 63% / 56%
T 43% 43% 68% / 64%

935 normal · 176 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
Wide30% 56.4%±4.1 n=359 45% ▲
Body16% 58.9%±5.4 n=193 1% ▼
T55% 57.2%±3.1 n=664 54%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 58.5%±3.4 n=544 42% ▼
Body8% 62.3%±7.3 n=90 0% ▼
T43% 62.1%±3.5 n=477 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.36).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.31 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: −1.4±3.2 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. (987 repeats, 1,278 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 130 46% +1.8±6.5
1stAd courtT 345 37% +1.2±4.1
1stAd courtWide 308 41% +6.5±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 183 42% −0.5±5.6
1stDeuce courtT 314 35% +2.9±4.2
1stDeuce courtWide 369 35% +1.1±3.9
2ndAd courtBody 154 60% +4.5±6.0
2ndAd courtT 125 60% +5.3±6.5
2ndAd courtWide 104 58% +4.7±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 185 57% +2.4±5.6
2ndDeuce courtT 79 60% +4.4±7.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 140 57% +2.8±6.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 2.9% · won 62% · ±0.0±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 62% · ±0.0±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 60% · −2.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 58% · −3.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 57% · −4.5±7.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.9% · won 62% · +14.6±7.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.1% · won 65% · +17.2±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.3% · won 57% · +10.0±7.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.7% · won 58% · +10.9±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, short used 2.9% · won 56% · +8.7±8.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 56% · +7.2±5.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 56% · +7.8±6.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 55% · +6.5±6.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 60% · +11.5±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 56% · +7.7±9.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 58% · +8.0±6.0 vs own baseline · +10.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Martina Hingis (2/6), Justine Henin (6/15)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.5% · won 60% · +9.9±7.4 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (31/55), Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (11/18)
  3. FH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 66% · +16.5±10.8 vs own baseline · +24.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (4/6), Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (9/9)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 61% · +10.9±10.0 vs own baseline · +16.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (6/10), Jennifer Capriati (6/9)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH inside-out → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +9.2±10.9 vs own baseline · +15.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Steffi Graf (17/25)
  6. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +8.3±10.4 vs own baseline · +13.7 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

FH to their forehand · return+3.8170
FH to their backhand · return +1+3.0363
BH to their forehand · return+3.0362
FH to their backhand · return+2.9424
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.5223

Most exposed to

BH slice to their forehand · rally−10.0531
BH slice to their forehand · return +1−7.8137
BH slice to their forehand · return−6.0193
BH to their forehand · rally−3.1446
BH slice to the middle · return−2.9236

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 · deuce55%
Wide serves · ad49%
1st serve in66%
BH down the line24%
Avg rally length4.5
T serves · ad43%
Forehand share54%
Serve & volley0%
FH down the line29%
Point-ending shots22.6%
Points at net6%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Chipped returns4%
Backhand slice5%
Unforced errors / shot8.8%
Run-around forehands1%
Wide serves · deuce30%
Through the middle21%
Deep returns21%

Plays most like

  1. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v
  2. Dinara Safina 2007–2011 plan v
  3. Vera Zvonareva 2003–2020 plan v
  4. Mona Barthel 2012–2021 plan v
  5. Linda Fruhvirtova 2022–2025 plan v
  6. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006 plan v
  7. Kate Makarova 2007–2018 plan v
  8. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Simona Halep 2013–2022
  2. Vera Zvonareva 2003–2020
  3. Mona Barthel 2012–2021

Charted matches