RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 38 charted matches · 2014–2026

Sorana Cirstea

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.7% ±2.7 raw 56.5% · tour 56.3% · 2,603 points
Return points won 46.1% ±2.8 raw 42.3% · tour 43.7% · 2,596 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 +0.03 ±0.08 better than 59% of WTA · raw +0.02
Shot selection +0.24 ±0.14 better than 71% of WTA · raw +0.22
Execution −0.19 ±0.44 better than 51% of WTA · raw −0.33
Tactical adaptability −0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 36 matches
Adaptation speed −0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.62 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 49% 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 12,707 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Sorana Cirstea 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 · 661 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 43.5%±4.7 46.7%
FH down the line 26% 45.0%±6.0 44.9%
FH through the middle 23% 32.9%±6.0 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 4% 24.2%±10.1 29.2%
FH slice down the line 2% 17.8%±10.9 24.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 53.4%±14.5 65.4%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 31.3%±13.9 31.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 661 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 45.5%±4.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 32% 39.5%±5.3 43.3%
BH down the line 20% 46.0%±6.6 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 23.0%±10.6 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 37.8%±14.1 40.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 597 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 45.3%±6.3 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 51.4%±7.0 52.2%
BH through the middle 16% 35.6%±7.3 46.2%
FH through the middle 15% 42.2%±7.9 45.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 54.9%±8.4 50.9%
BH down the line 11% 50.0%±9.0 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 381 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 50.9%±7.7 52.3%
FH down the line 19% 58.1%±8.4 53.0%
BH through the middle 16% 46.6%±9.1 46.2%
FH through the middle 14% 41.5%±9.5 46.5%
BH down the line 13% 57.9%±9.6 50.6%
BH crosscourt 13% 51.7%±10.0 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Sorana Cirstea's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 305 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 42% 68% / 66%
Body 17% 18% 55% / 57%
T 37% 40% 69% / 68%

1,268 normal · 77 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 51% 66% / 66%
Body 19% 15% 48% / 56%
T 36% 34% 61% / 64%

1,021 normal · 228 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% 60.1%±3.2 n=608 60% ▲
Body17% 55.0%±5.0 n=234 2% ▼
T37% 56.1%±3.5 n=503 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 56.3%±3.3 n=582 62% ▲
Body18% 52.3%±5.1 n=225 3% ▼
T35% 55.1%±3.8 n=442 35%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.68 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: −1.1±3.0 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. (865 repeats, 1,653 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 119 36% −8.2±6.5
1stAd courtT 287 36% +0.3±4.4
1stAd courtWide 337 35% +0.5±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 186 47% +4.5±5.6
1stDeuce courtT 277 31% −1.3±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 383 34% −0.3±3.8
2ndAd courtBody 195 54% −1.0±5.5
2ndAd courtT 119 56% +1.0±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 191 54% +0.8±5.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 221 54% −0.9±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 143 55% −1.2±6.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 134 47% −6.7±6.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · −0.2±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 57% · −1.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 55% · −4.0±8.5 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 50% · −8.8±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 51% · −8.3±8.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 57% · +14.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 55% · +12.6±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 55% · +12.7±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.2% · won 51% · +8.2±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 52% · +8.9±9.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 59% · +15.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 54% · +9.3±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 52% · +8.1±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 51% · +6.8±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.6% · won 48% · +4.1±7.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 55% · +10.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +15.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elena Rybakina (4/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +9.2±10.6 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Coco Gauff (3/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 53% · +8.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +10.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 52% · +8.0±11.9 vs own baseline · +7.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH down the line used 0.3% · won 54% · +9.6±12.8 vs own baseline · +16.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +6.9±11.3 vs own baseline · +11.5 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 2nd serve · deuce court+3.6135
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+3.1139
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.3167
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.7211
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.7184

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.3232
BH to their backhand · serve +1−3.1265
FH to their backhand · return +1−2.3160
Body 2nd serve · ad court−2.1195
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−2.1221

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.28, Caroline Wozniacki +2.91, Tatjana Maria +2.45, Angelique Kerber +2.33, Daria Kasatkina +2.32

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.58, Angelique Kerber +1.17, Marie Bouzkova +1.08, Elina Avanesyan +0.98, Katie Volynets +0.66

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Caroline Wozniacki, Su Wei Hsieh, Anhelina Kalinina, Ashlyn Krueger, Katie Boulter

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line27%
FH down the line34%
Deep returns36%
Wide serves · ad47%
Wide serves · deuce45%
Point-ending shots26.4%
T serves · deuce37%
Unforced errors / shot10.8%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Points at net7%
Serve & volley0%
Through the middle28%
Chipped returns8%
1st serve in61%
T serves · ad35%
Backhand slice7%
Avg rally length3.8
Run-around forehands3%
Forehand share51%

Plays most like

  1. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v
  2. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  3. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v
  5. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Mona Barthel 2012–2021 plan v
  7. Victoria Mboko 2022–2026 plan v
  8. Victoria Azarenka 2009–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches