RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 43 charted matches · 2019–2024

Ons Jabeur

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.5% ±2.5 raw 57.3% · tour 56.3% · 3,218 points
Return points won 45.3% ±2.6 raw 41.4% · tour 43.7% · 3,361 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 +0.26 ±0.05 better than 92% of WTA · raw +0.25
Shot selection −0.26 ±0.12 better than 24% of WTA · raw −0.29
Execution −0.79 ±0.34 better than 24% of WTA · raw −1.00
Tactical adaptability −0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 42 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.42 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 74% 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 16,021 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ons Jabeur 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 · 939 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 22% 43.9%±5.4 47.6%
BH down the line 17% 42.7%±6.0 46.8%
BH through the middle 17% 39.8%±6.0 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 37.5%±7.0 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 10% 36.3%±7.5 34.4%
BH drop shot crosscourt 6% 41.8%±9.5 47.5%
BH drop shot down the line 5% 39.5%±9.7 49.1%
BH slice down the line 5% 30.8%±9.3 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 766 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 49.3%±5.0 52.7%
FH down the line 24% 52.5%±5.8 52.2%
FH through the middle 14% 46.3%±7.2 45.8%
BH crosscourt 7% 40.5%±9.2 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 50.0%±9.8 50.0%
BH through the middle 6% 43.0%±9.9 46.2%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 55.9%±12.8 49.5%
BH drop shot down the line 1% 43.3%±14.6 47.1%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 697 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 39% 40.5%±4.7 46.7%
FH down the line 30% 43.8%±5.4 44.9%
FH through the middle 19% 36.5%±6.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 3% 25.9%±11.7 29.2%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 52.0%±14.3 50.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 28.6%±13.4 24.3%
FH slice crosscourt 1% 38.0%±14.6 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 608 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 20% 48.6%±6.9 47.8%
BH slice crosscourt 16% 43.3%±7.4 39.6%
BH down the line 15% 45.7%±7.8 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 14% 34.2%±7.5 33.2%
BH through the middle 13% 38.8%±8.1 43.0%
BH slice down the line 6% 30.6%±10.0 28.7%
BH drop shot down the line 4% 37.1%±12.0 51.6%
BH drop shot crosscourt 4% 43.2%±12.6 45.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Ons Jabeur's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 346 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 46% 67% / 66%
Body 7% 8% 62% / 57%
T 46% 46% 69% / 68%

1,592 normal · 80 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 29% 29% 67% / 66%
Body 10% 10% 54% / 56%
T 61% 61% 67% / 64%

1,269 normal · 266 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
Wide46% 58.8%±2.8 n=777 62% ▲
Body7% 60.8%±6.6 n=118 0% ▼
T46% 57.5%±2.9 n=777 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.67).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide29% 56.7%±3.7 n=446 42% ▲
Body10% 52.7%±6.2 n=148 0% ▼
T61% 56.6%±2.6 n=941 58% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.54).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.25 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±2.5 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. (1,240 repeats, 1,881 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 255 46% +2.1±4.9
1stAd courtT 337 34% −1.3±4.1
1stAd courtWide 432 31% −3.9±3.5
1stDeuce courtBody 279 44% +1.3±4.6
1stDeuce courtT 393 36% +4.0±3.8
1stDeuce courtWide 453 35% +0.6±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 237 51% −4.3±5.0
2ndAd courtT 83 53% −2.4±7.7
2ndAd courtWide 261 50% −3.7±4.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 314 49% −5.2±4.4
2ndDeuce courtT 205 54% −2.1±5.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 103 47% −6.3±7.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 61% · −0.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 61% · −0.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 54% · −7.2±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 52% · −9.4±8.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 53% · −8.5±7.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 51% · +9.9±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 50% · +8.9±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 49% · +7.9±8.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.4% · won 44% · +3.2±6.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 44% · +3.5±7.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 53% · +9.2±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · +9.8±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.8% · won 51% · +7.0±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.7% · won 47% · +2.8±6.1 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 49% · +4.9±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 54% · +9.4±9.4 vs own baseline · +3.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (4/6)
  2. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +14.7±12.2 vs own baseline · +22.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Body serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +10.3±11.2 vs own baseline · +17.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 54% · +9.6±11.6 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marketa Vondrousova (3/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.2% · won 56% · +10.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +18.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 54% · +8.8±12.0 vs own baseline · +8.5 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+3.8149
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+3.5296
T 2nd serve · ad court+3.2155
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.8265
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+2.3290

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · serve +1−1.6293
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.4217
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.2314
Body 2nd serve · ad court−0.7237
BH to their backhand · serve +1−0.6459

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.05, Caroline Wozniacki +1.87, Daria Kasatkina +1.25, Sara Errani +1.16, Angelique Kerber +1.12

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.56, Angelique Kerber +0.33, Elina Avanesyan +0.08, Marie Bouzkova +0.06, Linda Fruhvirtova −0.22

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Marie Bouzkova, Tamara Zidansek, Magda Linette, Su Wei Hsieh

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot6.0%
T serves · ad61%
BH down the line31%
Unforced errors / shot14.4%
Point-ending shots30.6%
T serves · deuce46%
Backhand slice33%
FH down the line34%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Chipped returns18%
Forehand share56%
Run-around forehands11%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Deep returns31%
Avg rally length3.7
Through the middle24%
Wide serves · ad29%
1st serve in55%

Plays most like

  1. Kristina Mladenovic 2015–2023 plan v
  2. Clara Tauson 2020–2026 plan v
  3. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  4. Viktoria Hruncakova 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Linda Noskova 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Julia Goerges 2009–2020 plan v
  7. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Timea Bacsinszky 2015–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Justine Henin 1999–2010
  3. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006

Charted matches