RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2014–2024

Shelby Rogers

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.7% ±3.0 raw 60.3% · tour 56.3% · 1,289 points
Return points won 45.0% ±3.1 raw 40.2% · tour 43.7% · 1,316 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 −0.15 ±0.09 better than 26% of WTA · raw −0.16
Shot selection −0.18 ±0.13 better than 29% of WTA · raw −0.20
Execution −0.20 ±0.44 better than 49% of WTA · raw −0.33
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.78 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 25% 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 6,178 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Shelby Rogers 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 · 343 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 24% 52.4%±8.1 52.2%
FH crosscourt 21% 47.3%±8.6 52.7%
FH through the middle 20% 45.1%±8.7 45.8%
BH through the middle 16% 53.0%±9.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 48.5%±11.0 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 34.8%±11.6 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 314 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 37.8%±7.1 43.3%
BH crosscourt 28% 39.0%±7.7 47.6%
BH down the line 17% 46.3%±9.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 10% 42.9%±11.4 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 36.3%±13.2 40.4%
BH slice down the line 4% 31.3%±13.3 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 288 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 33% 36.8%±7.4 41.3%
FH crosscourt 29% 51.3%±8.1 46.7%
FH down the line 29% 40.4%±7.9 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 26.2%±13.2 29.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 196 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 26% 41.9%±9.7 46.5%
FH crosscourt 24% 56.6%±9.9 52.3%
FH down the line 15% 52.2%±11.7 53.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 54.5%±11.8 50.8%
BH through the middle 12% 43.7%±12.3 46.2%
BH down the line 6% 41.0%±14.3 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Shelby Rogers's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 132 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 46% 72% / 66%
Body 18% 11% 59% / 57%
T 32% 43% ▲ 65% / 68%

632 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 40% 66% / 66%
Body 14% 10% 62% / 56%
T 42% 49% 65% / 64%

519 normal · 97 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
Wide50% 62.6%±4.2 n=335 65% ▲
Body18% 60.3%±6.6 n=117 2% ▼
T32% 58.2%±5.2 n=215 33%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.49).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 58.6%±4.7 n=269 42% ▼
Body13% 59.6%±7.6 n=82 0% ▼
T43% 60.6%±4.7 n=265 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.87).
Optimal mix: +0.6 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: −5.5±5.7 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. (416 repeats, 831 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 96 45% +1.5±7.3
1stAd courtT 143 31% −4.5±5.8
1stAd courtWide 139 30% −4.7±5.8
1stDeuce courtBody 108 43% ±0.0±6.9
1stDeuce courtT 149 31% −1.0±5.7
1stDeuce courtWide 176 27% −7.2±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 106 53% −1.7±7.0
2ndAd courtT 36 60% +4.8±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 108 54% +0.1±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 130 46% −8.0±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 90 55% −1.2±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 31 58% +3.8±10.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 63% · −0.5±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 62% · −0.8±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 61% · −2.5±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 60% · −2.8±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.0% · won 58% · −5.5±11.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 53% · +8.0±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.2% · won 52% · +7.2±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.3% · won 51% · +6.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 51% · +6.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 50% · +5.2±11.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 58% · +10.3±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 53% · +5.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.8% · won 52% · +4.4±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 52% · +5.1±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 52% · +5.1±11.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 51% · +5.6±10.2 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Katie Volynets (7/13), Ashleigh Barty (5/6)
  2. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 51% · +5.3±13.0 vs own baseline · +15.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 49% · +3.1±11.2 vs own baseline · +4.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ashleigh Barty (1/7)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 49% · +3.0±11.9 vs own baseline · +8.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Rebecca Peterson (4/7)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.7% · won 49% · +2.9±12.4 vs own baseline · +2.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 49% · +2.9±12.4 vs own baseline · +11.2 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 · serve +1+3.4164
FH to the middle · serve +1+2.0129
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.9133
FH to their forehand · rally+0.8271
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+0.7120

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−4.2168
FH to their backhand · rally−1.6305
T 1st serve · ad court−1.5217
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.2266
FH to the middle · rally−0.8219

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.84, Caroline Wozniacki +2.45, Daria Kasatkina +1.88, Angelique Kerber +1.84, Maja Chwalinska +1.78

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.72, Angelique Kerber +1.49, Marie Bouzkova +1.31, Elina Avanesyan +1.17, Katie Volynets +0.95

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Katie Boulter, Linda Fruhvirtova, Sara Errani, Leylah Fernandez, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce50%
FH down the line35%
Through the middle34%
Forehand share56%
T serves · ad43%
BH down the line23%
Wide serves · ad44%
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
Point-ending shots25.3%
Chipped returns12%
Backhand slice17%
Run-around forehands8%
1st serve in62%
Deep returns33%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Points at net5%
T serves · deuce32%
Avg rally length3.7

Plays most like

  1. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  2. Kaia Kanepi 2013–2023 plan v
  3. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Victoria Mboko 2022–2026 plan v
  7. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  8. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002

Charted matches