RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 28 charted matches · 2009–2022

Samantha Stosur

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.5% ±2.9 raw 55.9% · tour 56.3% · 1,997 points
Return points won 41.3% ±3.0 raw 38.7% · tour 43.7% · 1,908 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 +0.02 ±0.07 better than 56% of WTA · raw +0.02
Shot selection −0.03 ±0.15 better than 43% of WTA · raw −0.03
Execution −0.51 ±0.60 better than 32% of WTA · raw −0.54
Tactical adaptability +0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 28 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.77 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 26% 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 10,071 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Samantha Stosur 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 · 747 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 22% 32.7%±5.7 40.4%
BH through the middle 18% 36.6%±6.4 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 14% 31.1%±6.8 34.4%
BH crosscourt 12% 42.0%±7.9 47.6%
BH down the line 11% 41.3%±7.9 46.8%
FH inside-out 9% 49.4%±9.0 52.5%
FH inside-in 6% 46.2%±10.3 55.6%
BH slice down the line 4% 32.7%±10.9 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 481 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 38.7%±5.8 46.7%
FH down the line 28% 41.9%±6.7 44.9%
FH through the middle 26% 40.5%±6.8 41.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 71.7%±12.5 65.4%
FH slice through the middle 3% 29.8%±13.1 29.2%
FH slice down the line 3% 21.5%±11.9 24.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 465 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 35% 53.8%±6.1 52.2%
FH crosscourt 23% 50.8%±7.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 45.3%±8.0 45.8%
BH through the middle 6% 44.3%±11.8 46.2%
BH slice through the middle 3% 47.1%±13.7 44.8%
BH down the line 3% 44.5%±13.6 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 3% 62.0%±13.5 68.6%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 45.2%±14.3 49.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 356 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice through the middle 23% 30.3%±7.5 33.2%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 49.3%±9.1 39.6%
BH through the middle 16% 40.3%±9.3 43.0%
BH crosscourt 12% 41.9%±10.4 47.8%
BH down the line 11% 39.4%±10.5 46.2%
FH inside-out 6% 60.7%±12.3 55.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 28.0%±11.4 28.7%
FH through the middle 5% 41.7%±13.2 44.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Samantha Stosur's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 229 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 37% 68% / 66%
Body 19% 18% 56% / 57%
T 43% 45% 64% / 68%

974 normal · 67 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 28% ▼ 64% / 66%
Body 16% 12% 59% / 56%
T 44% 60% ▲ 73% / 64%

793 normal · 162 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
Wide38% 53.7%±4.0 n=396 38%
Body19% 49.8%±5.4 n=198 4% ▼
T43% 55.1%±3.7 n=447 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.35).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide38% 58.0%±4.1 n=366 38%
Body15% 52.1%±6.2 n=146 0% ▼
T46% 61.6%±3.7 n=443 62% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.05).
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.81 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: −0.6±3.8 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. (619 repeats, 1,321 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 141 42% −1.7±6.2
1stAd courtT 220 31% −4.5±4.8
1stAd courtWide 245 35% +0.9±4.7
1stDeuce courtBody 142 42% −0.9±6.2
1stDeuce courtT 289 32% −0.6±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 228 26% −8.4±4.5
2ndAd courtBody 111 56% +1.4±6.9
2ndAd courtT 60 48% −6.7±8.7
2ndAd courtWide 136 50% −3.5±6.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 109 53% −1.0±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 137 51% −5.2±6.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 90 43% −10.3±7.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 67% · +5.6±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 61% · −1.3±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · −2.9±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.7% · won 59% · −3.3±8.6 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 56% · −5.6±9.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.6% · won 54% · +12.5±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 49% · +7.1±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 49% · +7.7±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.0% · won 50% · +8.4±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.9% · won 48% · +6.2±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.4% · won 52% · +9.6±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 53% · +10.4±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 50% · +7.7±8.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH through the middle used 1.7% · won 50% · +7.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 50% · +7.1±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +14.2±12.4 vs own baseline · +20.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +10.6±11.0 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (6/9), Elena Dementieva (5/6)
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +12.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +20.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 55% · +11.4±11.9 vs own baseline · +14.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 49% · +5.5±8.6 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sara Errani (2/7), Elina Svitolina (7/15)
  6. T serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 53% · +9.4±12.2 vs own baseline · +19.5 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

T 1st serve · ad court+2.7443
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.6304
BH slice to the middle · rally+2.1205
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.0239
BH to the middle · rally+1.5245

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−3.2222
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−2.7335
T 2nd serve · deuce court−2.6137
BH to their backhand · return−2.4299
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.4136

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Alexandra Eala, Kayla Day, Caroline Wozniacki, Alize Cornet

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands28%
BH down the line33%
Forehand share62%
Backhand slice48%
FH down the line37%
T serves · ad46%
Points at net11%
T serves · deuce43%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley2%
Point-ending shots24.8%
Deep returns33%
1st serve in62%
Avg rally length4.0
Wide serves · ad38%
Wide serves · deuce38%
Through the middle27%
Drop shots / shot1.0%

Plays most like

  1. Diane Parry 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Daria Saville 2015–2024 plan v
  3. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  4. Christina Mchale 2012–2021 plan v
  5. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Svetlana Kuznetsova 2004–2021 plan v
  7. Katie Boulter 2018–2025 plan v
  8. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  3. Mary Pierce 1994–2005

Charted matches