WTA · Right-handed · 85 charted matches · 1985–1999
Steffi Graf
Archetype: Chip returner · Slice-heavy
Against an average opponent
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
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 35,955 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Steffi Graf 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 · 2,776 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice crosscourt | 47% | 50.3%±2.3 | 40.4% |
| BH slice through the middle | 16% | 42.4%±3.7 | 34.4% |
| BH slice down the line | 13% | 46.7%±4.2 | 31.7% |
| FH inside-out | 9% | 52.6%±5.0 | 52.5% |
| FH inside-in | 5% | 54.8%±6.5 | 55.6% |
| BH crosscourt | 3% | 51.7%±8.6 | 47.6% |
| FH through the middle | 2% | 51.8%±9.0 | 45.1% |
| BH drop shot crosscourt | 1% | 49.1%±11.2 | 47.5% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 1,973 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH slice crosscourt | 47% | 49.4%±2.7 | 38.7% |
| BH slice down the line | 17% | 48.2%±4.4 | 34.0% |
| BH slice through the middle | 15% | 41.0%±4.6 | 33.4% |
| FH inside-out | 8% | 57.5%±6.2 | 54.1% |
| FH inside-in | 4% | 54.1%±7.9 | 54.7% |
| BH crosscourt | 3% | 54.2%±9.6 | 47.9% |
| BH drop shot crosscourt | 3% | 53.2%±9.7 | 48.7% |
| BH through the middle | 1% | 35.2%±11.5 | 42.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 50% to the average player · 1,367 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 29% | 59.1%±4.0 | 52.7% |
| FH down the line | 22% | 56.5%±4.6 | 52.2% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 17% | 52.0%±5.2 | 49.5% |
| FH through the middle | 11% | 46.5%±6.4 | 45.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 10% | 45.2%±6.5 | 44.8% |
| BH slice down the line | 5% | 49.7%±8.9 | 43.9% |
| FH down the line + approach | 3% | 66.2%±9.8 | 68.6% |
| FH crosscourt + approach | 2% | 71.3%±11.5 | 69.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 43% to the average player · 1,304 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 52% | 52.8%±3.1 | 46.7% |
| FH down the line | 24% | 49.3%±4.5 | 44.9% |
| FH through the middle | 18% | 43.6%±5.1 | 41.3% |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | 30.8%±11.3 | 29.2% |
| FH down the line + approach | 2% | 70.2%±11.9 | 65.4% |
| FH slice crosscourt | 1% | 33.5%±13.9 | 31.9% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Steffi Graf's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 613 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 51% | 39% ▼ | 68% / 66% |
| Body | 14% | 23% ▲ | 57% / 57% |
| T | 36% | 38% | 67% / 68% |
3,083 normal · 133 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 57% | 59% | 64% / 66% |
| Body | 14% | 11% | 58% / 56% |
| T | 30% | 30% | 67% / 64% |
2,495 normal · 480 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 50% | 62.3%±2.0 n=1,617 | 65% ▲ |
| Body | 14% | 56.6%±3.7 n=452 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 36% | 60.7%±2.3 n=1,147 | 35% |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.06).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 57% | 60.5%±1.9 n=1,696 | 60% ▲ |
| Body | 13% | 56.5%±4.0 n=394 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 30% | 60.0%±2.7 n=885 | 40% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.27).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 0.75 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: −0.7±1.8 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. (2,586 repeats, 3,435 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 298 | 48% | +4.0±4.5 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 419 | 38% | +2.3±3.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 1,230 | 42% | +8.0±2.3 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 506 | 45% | +2.5±3.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 946 | 43% | +11.3±2.6 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 654 | 37% | +3.4±3.0 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 224 | 54% | −0.9±5.1 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 150 | 50% | −5.3±6.1 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 623 | 54% | +0.4±3.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 352 | 54% | −0.7±4.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 420 | 52% | −3.6±3.9 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 284 | 55% | +1.4±4.6 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Steffi Graf's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 64% · +1.0±6.4 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 62% · −0.5±6.3 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 59% · −3.6±4.7 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.4% · won 57% · −5.7±6.3 vs own baseline
- T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 57% · −5.7±5.7 vs own baseline
Return
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.6% · won 62% · +15.8±4.7 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out, mid used 2.8% · won 65% · +19.2±5.9 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.9% · won 62% · +16.5±5.8 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 9.5% · won 53% · +6.8±3.4 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 3.1% · won 55% · +9.5±5.8 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- BH slice crosscourt → FH inside-in used 1.4% · won 63% · +12.4±6.3 vs own baseline
- FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 62% · +11.7±6.6 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 57% · +6.3±4.4 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 58% · +7.9±6.2 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 55% · +4.2±4.3 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Steffi Graf wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 65% · +13.2±8.2 vs own baseline · +13.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (6/10), Jennifer Capriati (4/6)
- BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.5% · won 62% · +10.0±8.0 vs own baseline · +7.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gabriela Sabatini (1/6), Martina Hingis (3/6)
- T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 63% · +10.8±9.5 vs own baseline · +17.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Monica Seles (6/8), Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (5/6)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 67% · +14.6±11.2 vs own baseline · +11.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (7/9)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 58% · +5.9±6.5 vs own baseline · +5.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Amanda Coetzer (2/7), Mary Joe Fernandez (2/7)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 59% · +6.6±7.1 vs own baseline · +4.9 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 slice to their forehand · return +1 | +9.0 | 353 |
| BH slice to their forehand · rally | +7.4 | 1,682 |
| BH slice to their forehand · return | +7.3 | 515 |
| BH slice to their forehand · serve +1 | +7.1 | 340 |
| BH slice to their backhand · return | +6.6 | 1,178 |
Most exposed to
| BH slice to their backhand · serve +1 | −6.2 | 329 |
| BH slice to their backhand · return | −4.8 | 554 |
| BH slice to their forehand · return | −4.6 | 129 |
| BH slice to their forehand · return +1 | −4.6 | 139 |
| FH slice to the middle · return | −4.4 | 220 |
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.
| Backhand slice | 88% | |
| Run-around forehands | 34% | |
| Chipped returns | 52% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 57% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 50% | |
| Avg rally length | 4.8 | |
| 1st serve in | 67% | |
| Points at net | 11% | |
| BH down the line | 24% | |
| Serve & volley | 1% | |
| T serves · deuce | 36% | |
| Point-ending shots | 22.5% | |
| Drop shots / shot | 1.2% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 9.3% | |
| FH down the line | 26% | |
| Forehand share | 51% | |
| T serves · ad | 30% | |
| Through the middle | 16% | |
| Deep returns | 15% |
Plays most like
- Conchita Martinez 1993–2003 plan v
- Kirsten Flipkens 2013–2022 plan v
- Roberta Vinci 2012–2017 plan v
- Ashleigh Barty 2013–2022 plan v
- Francesca Schiavone 2006–2017 plan v
- Daria Saville 2015–2024 plan v
- Diane Parry 2021–2026 plan v
- Svetlana Kuznetsova 2004–2021 plan v
Closest from another era
- Kirsten Flipkens 2013–2022
- Roberta Vinci 2012–2017
- Ashleigh Barty 2013–2022
Charted matches
- Steffi Graf v Lindsay Davenport L Wimbledon F · Grass · 4 Jul 1999
- Steffi Graf v Martina Hingis W Roland Garros F · Clay · 5 Jun 1999
- Steffi Graf v Anna Kournikova Roland Garros R16 · Clay · 31 May 1999
- Serena Williams v Steffi Graf L Indian Wells F · Hard · 13 Mar 1999
- Steffi Graf v Barbara Schett W Hanover QF · Hard · 18 Feb 1999
- Steffi Graf v Martina Hingis L Tokyo QF · Hard · 1 Feb 1999
- Monica Seles v Steffi Graf L Australian Open QF · Hard · 27 Jan 1999
- Serena Williams v Steffi Graf W Sydney R16 · Hard · 11 Jan 1999
- Serena Williams v Steffi Graf W Hong Kong SF · Hard · 8 Jan 1999
- Lindsay Davenport v Steffi Graf L WTA Tour Championships SF · Hard · 21 Nov 1998
- Steffi Graf v Lindsay Davenport W Philadelphia F · Hard · 15 Nov 1998
- Steffi Graf v Jana Novotna W New Haven F · Hard · 6 Sep 1998