RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 29 charted matches · 2019–2026

Olga Danilovic

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.6% ±2.9 raw 55.4% · tour 56.3% · 2,114 points
Return points won 42.8% ±2.9 raw 40.8% · tour 43.7% · 1,928 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 −0.03 ±0.07 better than 49% of WTA · raw −0.03
Shot selection +0.44 ±0.13 better than 92% of WTA · raw +0.44
Execution −1.00 ±0.59 better than 18% of WTA · raw −0.98
Tactical adaptability −0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 29 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.96 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 12% 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 10,163 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Olga Danilovic 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 · 572 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 48.4%±5.6 52.7%
BH through the middle 15% 37.1%±7.8 46.2%
FH down the line 15% 44.1%±8.0 52.2%
BH crosscourt 13% 52.3%±8.5 50.9%
FH through the middle 11% 39.0%±8.7 45.8%
BH down the line 5% 52.0%±11.6 50.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 64.6%±13.5 69.7%
FH down the line + approach 2% 60.4%±14.5 68.6%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 559 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 45.8%±5.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 44.4%±6.1 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 40.6%±8.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.3%±9.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 29.3%±10.8 40.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 37.4%±13.9 31.7%
FH inside-out 2% 48.4%±15.0 52.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 527 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 45.9%±5.0 46.7%
FH down the line 29% 43.3%±6.2 44.9%
FH through the middle 19% 38.0%±7.3 41.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 60.3%±14.7 65.4%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 349 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 56.3%±7.1 54.0%
FH through the middle 17% 48.2%±9.2 45.5%
BH through the middle 16% 32.4%±8.9 46.3%
FH down the line 14% 56.0%±9.8 53.3%
BH crosscourt 13% 56.8%±10.0 52.5%
BH down the line 5% 47.9%±13.3 51.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 3% 75.3%±12.7 71.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Olga Danilovic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 242 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 19% ▼ 64% / 66%
Body 29% 37% ▲ 54% / 57%
T 45% 44% 64% / 68%

1,035 normal · 54 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 59% 55% 61% / 66%
Body 17% 22% 57% / 56%
T 24% 22% 73% / 64%

834 normal · 188 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
Wide26% 55.0%±4.6 n=286 32% ▲
Body29% 52.5%±4.4 n=316 14% ▼
T45% 56.4%±3.6 n=487 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide58% 55.6%±3.3 n=597 58%
Body18% 52.5%±5.6 n=186 3% ▼
T23% 59.3%±4.9 n=239 39% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.25).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.72 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: +4.4±4.3 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. (728 repeats, 1,325 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 105 49% +5.1±7.1
1stAd courtT 212 29% −6.3±4.8
1stAd courtWide 224 28% −6.8±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 128 35% −7.3±6.3
1stDeuce courtT 166 28% −4.3±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 331 34% +0.1±4.1
2ndAd courtBody 176 52% −3.3±5.7
2ndAd courtT 138 56% +1.2±6.3
2ndAd courtWide 64 54% +0.8±8.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 138 57% +2.9±6.3
2ndDeuce courtT 29 57% +1.3±10.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 212 51% −2.5±5.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 56% · −2.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 5.2% · won 57% · −1.9±7.2 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 55% · −3.5±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 56% · −3.3±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 53% · −5.5±9.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 52% · +10.1±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.9% · won 51% · +8.4±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.5% · won 48% · +6.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.8% · won 49% · +6.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 47% · +4.9±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 51% · +7.2±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 10.0% · won 47% · +2.6±5.8 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 48% · +3.7±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.5% · won 47% · +3.2±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 3.5% · won 47% · +2.5±8.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 61% · +16.3±10.7 vs own baseline · +21.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +11.5±12.5 vs own baseline · +23.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +10.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +9.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Bondar (5/8)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 52% · +7.5±11.4 vs own baseline · +9.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Donna Vekic (4/6)
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 48% · +3.5±7.9 vs own baseline · +1.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Danielle Collins (1/9), Kimberly Birrell (3/6)
  6. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +6.7±12.0 vs own baseline · +7.6 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

Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.5161
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.7260
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.7597
BH to their forehand · return+1.4279
FH to their backhand · rally+1.0720

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.6170
FH to their forehand · rally−1.7421
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−1.5212
BH to their forehand · rally−1.4441
BH to the middle · rally−1.3350

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.86, Caroline Wozniacki +2.42, Angelique Kerber +2.17, Daria Kasatkina +1.92, Maja Chwalinska +1.86

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +1.42, Sara Errani +1.34, Marie Bouzkova +0.94, Elina Avanesyan +0.82, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.45

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Iga Swiatek, Belinda Bencic, Leylah Fernandez, Coco Gauff, Linda Noskova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad58%
Forehand share59%
T serves · deuce45%
Point-ending shots26.4%
1st serve in64%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
Deep returns34%
Points at net8%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Run-around forehands7%
Chipped returns10%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice13%
FH down the line28%
Avg rally length3.9
Through the middle26%
BH down the line17%
T serves · ad23%
Wide serves · deuce26%

Plays most like

  1. Xiyu Wang 2019–2025 plan v
  2. Leylah Fernandez 2020–2026 plan v
  3. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Bernarda Pera 2017–2025 plan v
  6. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  8. Alexandra Eala 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches