WTA · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · –
R
Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle
Against an average opponent
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
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 5,191 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points R 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 forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 299 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 38% | 52.9%±7.1 | 46.7% |
| FH through the middle | 26% | 49.8%±8.4 | 41.3% |
| FH down the line | 24% | 43.9%±8.6 | 44.9% |
| FH slice through the middle | 4% | 38.9%±14.0 | 29.2% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side
position worth 45% to the average player · 288 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 42% | 47.6%±6.9 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 24% | 45.7%±8.7 | 43.3% |
| BH down the line | 11% | 48.8%±11.4 | 46.8% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 10% | 47.1%±11.7 | 40.4% |
| BH slice through the middle | 9% | 48.6%±12.3 | 34.4% |
| BH slice down the line | 4% | 30.1%±13.6 | 31.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 267 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 32% | 54.8%±8.0 | 52.7% |
| BH crosscourt | 16% | 47.9%±10.4 | 50.9% |
| BH through the middle | 15% | 50.4%±10.6 | 46.2% |
| FH down the line | 14% | 47.3%±10.8 | 52.2% |
| FH through the middle | 13% | 51.2%±11.1 | 45.8% |
| BH down the line | 7% | 50.0%±13.0 | 50.0% |
Return +1: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 162 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 29% | 48.5%±10.0 | 52.3% |
| BH crosscourt | 19% | 50.3%±11.6 | 50.8% |
| BH through the middle | 16% | 54.9%±12.1 | 46.2% |
| FH through the middle | 15% | 41.6%±12.2 | 46.5% |
| FH down the line | 11% | 51.6%±13.3 | 53.0% |
| BH down the line | 10% | 35.5%±12.9 | 50.6% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied R's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 84 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 43% | 30% ▼ | 74% / 66% |
| Body | 23% | 30% | 53% / 57% |
| T | 34% | 39% | 75% / 68% |
496 normal · 23 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 33% | 33% | 67% / 66% |
| Body | 25% | 20% | 51% / 56% |
| T | 42% | 48% | 59% / 64% |
403 normal · 61 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 42% | 67.8%±4.9 n=218 | 57% ▲ |
| Body | 24% | 55.1%±6.6 n=123 | 9% ▼ |
| T | 34% | 63.7%±5.5 n=178 | 34% |
Off equilibrium (p = 0.013): serve wide more. Gap 4.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.2 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 33% | 58.9%±6.0 n=153 | 48% ▲ |
| Body | 24% | 48.7%±6.9 n=113 | 9% ▼ |
| T | 43% | 52.1%±5.4 n=198 | 43% |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 1.12 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: −3.3±3.3 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. (334 repeats, 635 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 80 | 49% | +5.4±7.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 121 | 41% | +5.3±6.6 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 84 | 33% | −1.7±7.2 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 95 | 47% | +4.4±7.3 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 94 | 25% | −7.4±6.4 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 138 | 26% | −8.3±5.5 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 96 | 58% | +3.3±7.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 43 | 50% | −5.0±9.6 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 40 | 52% | −2.0±9.8 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 101 | 49% | −5.3±7.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 34 | 56% | −0.1±10.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 57 | 46% | −7.6±8.8 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than R's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 7.7% · won 71% · +11.2±7.6 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 70% · +10.7±10.6 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 7.1% · won 64% · +3.8±8.3 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 7.1% · won 61% · +1.6±8.4 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 7.9% · won 61% · +1.3±8.0 vs own baseline
Return
- vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.2% · won 58% · +11.1±11.4 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 54% · +7.4±11.7 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.8% · won 51% · +4.3±11.1 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.3% · won 50% · +3.4±10.8 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 47% · +0.4±11.6 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- FH down the line → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 50% · ±0.0±8.1 vs own baseline
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.6% · won 50% · ±0.0±5.6 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 5.6% · won 50% · ±0.0±5.6 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.6% · won 50% · ±0.0±7.7 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 50% · ±0.0±5.4 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often R wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 58% · +6.7±10.5 vs own baseline · +18.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by R (22/35)
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 57% · +5.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by R (16/26)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 57% · +5.4±12.6 vs own baseline · +17.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by R (11/17)
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 55% · +3.2±10.4 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by R (21/37)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +3.6±11.9 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by R (13/22)
- BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 55% · +3.4±11.7 vs own baseline · +19.3 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
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | +4.5 | 141 |
| Wide 1st serve · deuce court | +1.7 | 218 |
| Wide 1st serve · ad court | +1.6 | 153 |
| T 1st serve · deuce court | +0.5 | 178 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +0.1 | 175 |
Most exposed to
| BH to their backhand · serve +1 | −4.5 | 141 |
| Wide 1st serve · deuce court | −1.7 | 218 |
| Wide 1st serve · ad court | −1.6 | 153 |
| T 1st serve · deuce court | −0.5 | 178 |
| BH to the middle · rally | −0.1 | 175 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Coco Gauff, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Marie Bouzkova
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.
| Deep returns | 40% | |
| T serves · ad | 43% | |
| Drop shots / shot | 2.0% | |
| Run-around forehands | 9% | |
| Points at net | 8% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 42% | |
| Avg rally length | 4.2 | |
| Chipped returns | 12% | |
| Through the middle | 29% | |
| Serve & volley | 1% | |
| 1st serve in | 62% | |
| Backhand slice | 15% | |
| Point-ending shots | 23.7% | |
| BH down the line | 19% | |
| T serves · deuce | 34% | |
| Forehand share | 52% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 9.5% | |
| FH down the line | 26% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 33% |
Plays most like
- Varvara Gracheva 2021–2026 plan v
- Jessica Pegula 2015–2026 plan v
- Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
- Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
- Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
- Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
- Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
- Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v