RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 17 charted matches · 2018–2024

Rebecca Marino

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.9% ±3.5 raw 61.2% · tour 56.3% · 1,131 points
Return points won 43.1% ±3.6 raw 41.8% · tour 43.7% · 1,160 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 −0.18 ±0.10 better than 20% of WTA · raw −0.16
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.15 better than 48% of WTA · raw +0.07
Execution −0.84 ±0.52 better than 23% of WTA · raw −0.56
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed −0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.70 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 33% 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 5,873 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Rebecca Marino 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 · 467 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 46.9%±6.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 22% 45.3%±7.4 45.8%
FH down the line 16% 49.4%±8.4 52.2%
BH through the middle 15% 45.2%±8.7 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 48.0%±10.2 50.9%
BH down the line 7% 43.1%±11.4 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 315 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 37% 43.9%±7.0 43.3%
BH crosscourt 33% 44.3%±7.4 47.6%
BH down the line 11% 46.1%±11.1 46.8%
BH slice down the line 8% 29.0%±11.0 31.7%
BH slice through the middle 5% 30.2%±12.6 34.4%
FH inside-out 3% 61.7%±14.6 52.5%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 259 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 25% 40.3%±8.8 46.2%
FH through the middle 25% 41.5%±8.8 46.5%
FH crosscourt 17% 48.4%±10.4 52.3%
FH down the line 16% 46.1%±10.4 53.0%
BH crosscourt 12% 38.3%±11.3 50.8%
BH down the line 5% 53.3%±14.1 50.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 250 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 44.2%±6.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 31% 37.0%±8.0 41.3%
FH down the line 17% 46.7%±10.4 44.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Rebecca Marino'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 45% 48% 65% / 66%
Body 11% 10% 65% / 57%
T 44% 41% 75% / 68%

560 normal · 29 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 53% 77% / 66%
Body 10% 10% 56% / 56%
T 43% 37% 72% / 64%

450 normal · 83 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
Wide45% 59.5%±4.7 n=264 60% ▲
Body11% 62.2%±8.2 n=65 0% ▼
T44% 57.7%±4.8 n=260 40% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 66.3%±4.6 n=255 63% ▲
Body10% 59.3%±8.9 n=53 0% ▼
T42% 62.0%±5.0 n=225 37% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.28).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.62 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: −2.5±3.6 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. (380 repeats, 708 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 88 48% +3.7±7.6
1stAd courtT 162 35% −0.8±5.7
1stAd courtWide 117 37% +2.5±6.5
1stDeuce courtBody 102 45% +1.9±7.1
1stDeuce courtT 96 35% +2.5±7.0
1stDeuce courtWide 197 37% +2.6±5.3
2ndAd courtBody 83 52% −3.3±7.7
2ndAd courtT 44 47% −8.4±9.5
2ndAd courtWide 63 57% +3.5±8.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 102 45% −9.5±7.1
2ndDeuce courtT 54 52% −3.9±9.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 44 46% −7.6±9.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 65% · +0.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 63% · −2.0±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 57% · −8.0±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 58% · −6.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 57% · −8.2±10.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 56% · +14.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.7% · won 50% · +9.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 7.5% · won 49% · +8.1±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 50% · +8.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 47% · +6.1±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 58% · +12.5±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.6% · won 51% · +6.4±7.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 53% · +8.0±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 51% · +5.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.6% · won 50% · +5.0±9.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.9% · won 55% · +10.6±11.5 vs own baseline · +21.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 58% · +13.3±12.9 vs own baseline · +30.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 54% · +9.0±12.2 vs own baseline · +23.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +7.9±12.1 vs own baseline · +8.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Paula Badosa (1/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 49% · +4.8±10.9 vs own baseline · −2.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 50% · +5.7±12.7 vs own baseline · +19.8 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 1st serve · ad court+3.4255
T 1st serve · ad court+2.5225
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.8264
BH to their backhand · return+1.7131
FH to the middle · return+1.6320

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · rally−1.0305
FH to the middle · serve +1−0.9149
BH to the middle · serve +1−0.6171
FH to the middle · return−0.5215
T 1st serve · ad court−0.3229

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.33, Caroline Wozniacki +1.69, Tatjana Maria +1.27, Daria Kasatkina +1.17, Maja Chwalinska +1.06

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.76, Angelique Kerber +0.52, Marie Bouzkova +0.32, Elina Avanesyan +0.13, Katie Volynets +0.05

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Caroline Wozniacki, Linda Fruhvirtova, Daria Kasatkina, Magdalena Frech

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot14.4%
Through the middle35%
Deep returns39%
T serves · deuce44%
Point-ending shots28.6%
Wide serves · ad48%
Forehand share56%
Wide serves · deuce45%
T serves · ad42%
Run-around forehands8%
Backhand slice17%
Serve & volley0%
Avg rally length3.9
BH down the line18%
Points at net5%
Chipped returns4%
Drop shots / shot0.6%
1st serve in58%
FH down the line23%

Plays most like

  1. Maya Joint 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v
  4. Robin Montgomery 2022–2026 plan v
  5. Coco Vandeweghe 2014–2018 plan v
  6. Elena Rybakina 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Veronika Kudermetova 2018–2025 plan v
  8. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches