RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 17 charted matches · 2013–2021

Polona Hercog

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.3% ±3.0 raw 56.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,341 points
Return points won 46.1% ±3.0 raw 44.4% · tour 43.7% · 1,312 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 +0.08 ±0.14 better than 69% of WTA · raw +0.08
Shot selection −0.78 ±0.38 better than 5% of WTA · raw −0.78
Execution −0.50 ±0.45 better than 33% of WTA · raw −0.46
Tactical adaptability +0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.72 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 30% 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 7,731 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Polona Hercog 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 · 562 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 21% 49.0%±7.0 40.4%
BH crosscourt 17% 41.5%±7.5 47.6%
BH slice through the middle 16% 44.0%±7.8 34.4%
BH through the middle 12% 48.5%±8.8 43.3%
FH inside-out 12% 50.6%±8.9 52.5%
FH through the middle 7% 34.5%±10.3 45.1%
BH slice down the line 5% 40.7%±11.4 31.7%
FH inside-in 4% 57.1%±12.3 55.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 435 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 29% 52.8%±6.8 52.7%
FH down the line 25% 55.0%±7.2 52.2%
FH through the middle 22% 43.1%±7.6 45.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 52.1%±12.1 44.8%
BH crosscourt 6% 53.7%±12.2 50.9%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 54.8%±12.9 49.5%
BH through the middle 3% 43.6%±13.8 46.2%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 398 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 46.3%±5.7 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 46.6%±7.4 41.3%
FH down the line 13% 51.4%±9.7 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 36.6%±11.7 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 24.7%±12.2 31.9%
FH slice down the line 3% 29.6%±13.7 24.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 308 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 28% 49.3%±8.0 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 21% 35.7%±8.5 33.4%
BH crosscourt 19% 52.0%±9.3 47.9%
BH through the middle 10% 44.2%±11.4 42.7%
FH inside-out 6% 54.5%±13.0 54.1%
BH slice down the line 6% 42.0%±12.8 34.0%
FH through the middle 3% 37.9%±14.6 41.9%
FH inside-in 3% 36.5%±14.5 54.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Polona Hercog's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 150 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 26% 69% / 66%
Body 16% 18% 61% / 57%
T 50% 55% 67% / 68%

657 normal · 38 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 53% 59% / 66%
Body 18% 21% 58% / 56%
T 35% 27% 62% / 64%

525 normal · 112 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
Wide34% 58.6%±5.0 n=233 49% ▲
Body17% 58.9%±6.7 n=115 1% ▼
T50% 57.2%±4.2 n=347 50%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.90).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 53.6%±4.4 n=310 49%
Body18% 57.7%±6.7 n=115 3% ▼
T33% 53.4%±5.3 n=212 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.54).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.27 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: −5.0±6.3 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. (469 repeats, 829 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 70 43% −0.7±8.1
1stAd courtT 121 42% +6.6±6.6
1stAd courtWide 190 37% +3.0±5.4
1stDeuce courtBody 108 48% +5.1±7.0
1stDeuce courtT 161 40% +7.5±5.8
1stDeuce courtWide 160 32% −2.3±5.6
2ndAd courtBody 97 51% −4.2±7.3
2ndAd courtT 39 50% −5.0±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 110 56% +2.2±6.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 106 50% −4.9±7.1
2ndDeuce courtT 82 55% −0.8±7.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 63 52% −2.0±8.5

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Polona Hercog'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 4.8% · won 65% · +4.8±8.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 64% · +3.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 62% · +1.9±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 61% · +0.7±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 60% · −0.5±11.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out, mid used 4.0% · won 60% · +13.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 55% · +7.4±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 51% · +4.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.9% · won 50% · +3.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 49% · +2.1±11.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 57% · +8.1±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 1.9% · won 54% · +5.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. BH slice through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 2.5% · won 53% · +4.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 3.8% · won 52% · +3.3±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 52% · +3.7±9.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Polona Hercog 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 through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 63% · +14.8±11.7 vs own baseline · +27.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (5/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 59% · +10.1±11.7 vs own baseline · +12.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH slice through the middle → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +8.9±12.6 vs own baseline · +31.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +6.1±12.1 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +6.1±12.1 vs own baseline · +15.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (6/10), Kiki Bertens (5/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.3±12.4 vs own baseline · +14.9 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 to their forehand · return+2.2151
BH slice to the middle · rally+2.1234
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.9144
BH slice to the middle · return+1.7131
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.1228

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−1.1338
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.5206
Body 1st serve · deuce court±0.0149
BH to their backhand · return+0.2222
FH to the middle · serve +1+0.6139

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands30%
Backhand slice58%
Forehand share62%
T serves · deuce50%
Drop shots / shot2.7%
Chipped returns22%
Avg rally length4.6
Wide serves · ad49%
Unforced errors / shot11.8%
Serve & volley1%
Points at net7%
Point-ending shots23.5%
Deep returns32%
Through the middle28%
T serves · ad33%
Wide serves · deuce34%
1st serve in56%
FH down the line22%
BH down the line11%

Plays most like

  1. Eva Vedder 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Ashleigh Barty 2013–2022 plan v
  3. Suzan Lamens 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Jule Niemeier 2021–2025 plan v
  5. Daria Saville 2015–2024 plan v
  6. Misaki Doi 2015–2021 plan v
  7. Kiki Bertens 2012–2021 plan v
  8. Kaja Juvan 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Conchita Martinez 1993–2003
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Steffi Graf 1985–1999

Charted matches