RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 34 charted matches · 2019–2025

Sara Sorribes Tormo

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 53.3% ±2.8 raw 50.5% · tour 56.3% · 2,477 points
Return points won 47.9% ±2.8 raw 48.0% · tour 43.7% · 2,532 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 −0.48 ±0.10 better than 0% of WTA · raw −0.47
Shot selection −0.84 ±0.19 better than 5% of WTA · raw −0.82
Execution +2.10 ±0.36 better than 99% of WTA · raw +2.29
Tactical adaptability −0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 34 matches
Adaptation speed +0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.12 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 7% 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 18,227 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Sara Sorribes Tormo 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 · 1,711 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 22% 42.8%±4.1 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 21% 49.0%±4.3 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 20% 45.0%±4.3 40.4%
BH crosscourt 12% 41.1%±5.5 47.6%
FH inside-out 9% 54.1%±6.3 52.5%
BH down the line 7% 51.8%±7.2 46.8%
BH slice down the line 4% 40.6%±8.7 31.7%
FH through the middle 2% 47.5%±10.7 45.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,400 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 23% 46.2%±4.4 42.7%
BH slice crosscourt 21% 41.1%±4.6 38.7%
BH crosscourt 19% 43.9%±4.8 47.9%
BH slice through the middle 18% 41.8%±4.9 33.4%
BH down the line 7% 43.2%±7.7 46.7%
BH slice down the line 4% 42.6%±9.7 34.0%
FH inside-out 3% 52.0%±10.0 54.1%
FH through the middle 1% 45.5%±13.7 41.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,194 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 38% 41.5%±3.7 41.3%
FH crosscourt 31% 49.4%±4.2 46.7%
FH down the line 18% 50.2%±5.4 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 37.5%±9.6 29.2%
FH lob through the middle 3% 36.5%±10.2 29.4%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 32.0%±11.4 31.9%
FH lob down the line 1% 23.5%±11.6 27.3%
FH down the line + approach 1% 69.0%±13.4 65.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,016 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 36% 47.9%±4.2 47.0%
FH through the middle 31% 42.9%±4.5 41.5%
FH down the line 19% 46.1%±5.7 46.4%
FH slice through the middle 5% 27.1%±9.0 29.3%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 30.0%±9.7 31.6%
FH lob through the middle 3% 41.1%±11.6 30.6%
FH slice down the line 1% 28.3%±13.1 25.3%
FH lob down the line 1% 31.1%±13.7 23.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Sara Sorribes Tormo's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 331 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 30% ▼ 61% / 66%
Body 40% 50% ▲ 51% / 57%
T 15% 20% 59% / 68%

1,196 normal · 80 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 23% 30% 58% / 66%
Body 53% 48% 53% / 56%
T 24% 22% 54% / 64%

938 normal · 251 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
Wide44% 53.0%±3.4 n=561 59% ▲
Body41% 49.9%±3.5 n=522 26% ▼
T15% 49.9%±5.5 n=193 15%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.46).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide24% 51.5%±4.6 n=291 40% ▲
Body52% 49.4%±3.2 n=618 37% ▼
T24% 48.6%±4.7 n=280 23%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.69).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.69 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: +3.4±2.8 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. (946 repeats, 1,451 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 228 45% +1.5±5.1
1stAd courtT 234 43% +7.9±5.0
1stAd courtWide 319 40% +5.2±4.3
1stDeuce courtBody 301 49% +6.6±4.5
1stDeuce courtT 254 40% +7.5±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 320 38% +3.8±4.3
2ndAd courtBody 218 59% +4.4±5.1
2ndAd courtT 59 58% +2.8±8.6
2ndAd courtWide 168 55% +1.5±5.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 216 57% +3.0±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 122 54% −1.5±6.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 90 56% +2.2±7.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.8% · won 56% · +3.3±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 55% · +1.7±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 53% · −0.3±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.2% · won 51% · −1.5±8.4 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH slice through the middle used 2.6% · won 49% · −3.7±9.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.6% · won 58% · +8.6±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 56% · +7.0±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 56% · +6.4±7.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.3% · won 53% · +4.4±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.7% · won 55% · +6.0±8.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 52% · +5.1±5.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 51% · +4.4±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 52% · +5.2±7.9 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 1.6% · won 50% · +3.7±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 1.6% · won 50% · +3.3±7.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH slice down the line → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.3% · won 58% · +11.5±10.8 vs own baseline · +24.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 0.2% · won 56% · +9.0±12.0 vs own baseline · +21.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Angelique Kerber (13/20)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH slice through the middle used 0.1% · won 57% · +9.9±12.9 vs own baseline · +28.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 1.0% · won 51% · +3.7±7.2 vs own baseline · +15.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nuria Parrizas Diaz (2/7), Iga Swiatek (2/6)
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 50% · +3.3±6.6 vs own baseline · +4.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (3/9), Iga Swiatek (4/10)
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 55% · +7.8±11.9 vs own baseline · +15.3 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 forehand · rally+5.6363
BH to their backhand · return+5.2205
FH to the middle · return+4.1737
BH to the middle · return+3.8459
FH to their forehand · return+3.8143

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−4.0326
BH to the middle · return−3.2448
FH volley to their forehand · rally−3.0129
BH to the middle · serve +1−2.7246
FH to the middle · return−2.6732

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Caroline Wozniacki +3.02, Angelique Kerber +2.54, Daria Kasatkina +2.40, Linda Fruhvirtova +2.23, Sara Errani +2.19

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +4.53, Sara Errani +4.23, Marie Bouzkova +4.20, Elina Avanesyan +3.95, Anhelina Kalinina +3.84

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki, Emma Raducanu, Alexandra Eala, Daria Kasatkina

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length6.4
Through the middle40%
Backhand slice50%
1st serve in72%
Run-around forehands19%
Serve & volley3%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Points at net9%
Forehand share53%
FH down the line29%
Chipped returns8%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
BH down the line18%
Deep returns27%
T serves · ad24%
Wide serves · ad24%
Point-ending shots10.8%
Unforced errors / shot4.5%
T serves · deuce15%

Plays most like

  1. Sara Errani 2011–2025 plan v
  2. Katie Volynets 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  4. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Daria Kasatkina 2015–2026 plan v
  6. Madison Brengle 2014–2023 plan v
  7. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Chris Evert 1979–1989

Charted matches