RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 2016–2025

Nao Hibino

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.0% ±3.5 raw 53.4% · tour 56.3% · 716 points
Return points won 43.5% ±3.5 raw 41.1% · tour 43.7% · 723 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 −0.14 ±0.10 better than 27% of WTA · raw −0.13
Shot selection −0.13 ±0.14 better than 34% of WTA · raw −0.11
Execution −0.86 ±0.99 better than 22% of WTA · raw −0.74
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed −0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.71 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 32% 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 3,746 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Nao Hibino 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 middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 248 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 25% 46.0%±9.0 45.8%
FH down the line 25% 47.5%±9.1 52.2%
FH crosscourt 21% 50.1%±9.6 52.7%
BH through the middle 12% 46.5%±11.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 39.5%±11.9 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 51.4%±13.9 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 227 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 49.0%±8.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 47.2%±9.0 43.3%
BH down the line 19% 48.2%±10.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 37.9%±13.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 39.6%±14.0 40.4%
FH inside-out 4% 58.4%±14.8 52.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 203 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 46.8%±9.0 46.7%
FH down the line 27% 44.0%±9.4 44.9%
FH through the middle 25% 37.5%±9.5 41.3%
FH slice crosscourt 9% 32.6%±12.5 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 8% 32.9%±12.9 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 119 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 47.0%±10.2 47.8%
BH through the middle 35% 52.6%±10.4 43.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Nao Hibino's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 112 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 56% ▲ 63% / 66%
Body 35% 15% ▼ 60% / 57%
T 30% 30% 55% / 68%

343 normal · 27 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 47% 66% / 66%
Body 18% 14% 55% / 56%
T 37% 39% 60% / 64%

259 normal · 85 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
Wide37% 50.1%±6.4 n=137 42% ▲
Body33% 55.0%±6.6 n=123 18% ▼
T30% 50.6%±7.0 n=110 40% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.56).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 56.5%±6.0 n=157 55% ▲
Body17% 52.0%±8.7 n=59 2% ▼
T37% 55.6%±6.5 n=128 43% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.69).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.38 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: +0.9±4.4 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. (231 repeats, 463 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 64 38% −5.4±8.3
1stAd courtT 54 32% −3.8±8.4
1stAd courtWide 116 35% +0.7±6.5
1stDeuce courtBody 62 45% +2.8±8.5
1stDeuce courtT 95 32% −0.4±6.8
1stDeuce courtWide 76 30% −3.6±7.3
2ndAd courtBody 58 57% +2.4±8.7
2ndAd courtT 20 51% −4.0±11.6
2ndAd courtWide 32 50% −3.4±10.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 62 54% −0.8±8.6
2ndDeuce courtT 39 59% +3.1±9.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 45 50% −4.3±9.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 60% · +3.4±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 56% · −0.6±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.7% · won 53% · −3.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 5.2% · won 52% · −4.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 3.9% · won 49% · −7.6±11.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 8.6% · won 51% · +5.6±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.8% · won 50% · +3.6±11.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.8% · won 46% · −0.4±11.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.8% · won 44% · −2.4±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.8% · won 42% · −4.4±11.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 56% · +5.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 10.4% · won 52% · +2.4±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.2% · won 53% · +2.9±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 4.4% · won 52% · +1.9±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.0% · won 50% · ±0.0±11.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 51% · +3.4±12.3 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 50% · +2.3±12.4 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Misaki Doi (6/12)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 48% · +1.1±12.9 vs own baseline · −4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Misaki Doi (3/7)
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 47% · −0.2±13.0 vs own baseline · −1.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arantxa Rus (2/6), Misaki Doi (4/8)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 45% · −2.0±12.1 vs own baseline · −4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (5/6)

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+0.9161
FH to the middle · rally+0.7160
Body 1st serve · deuce court+0.2123
BH to their forehand · rally±0.0125
BH to the middle · rally−0.1141

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−2.8229
BH to the middle · return−1.7181
FH to the middle · rally−1.0143
BH to their backhand · rally−0.9130
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.8175

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Clara Burel, Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Arianne Hartono, Angelique Kerber

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share58%
Through the middle34%
Run-around forehands11%
Wide serves · ad46%
Deep returns35%
FH down the line30%
1st serve in63%
Chipped returns12%
Avg rally length4.2
Unforced errors / shot10.8%
T serves · ad37%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Backhand slice11%
Points at net5%
Point-ending shots21.9%
BH down the line18%
Wide serves · deuce37%
T serves · deuce30%

Plays most like

  1. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Jaqueline Cristian 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  8. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches