RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 32 charted matches · 2021–2026

Suzan Lamens

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.9% ±2.8 raw 58.6% · tour 56.3% · 2,220 points
Return points won 46.1% ±2.9 raw 45.5% · tour 43.7% · 2,316 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 −0.13 ±0.09 better than 29% of WTA · raw −0.11
Shot selection +0.27 ±0.13 better than 75% of WTA · raw +0.32
Execution −0.34 ±0.45 better than 41% of WTA · raw +0.01
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 32 matches
Adaptation speed +0.17 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.63 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 47% 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 13,272 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Suzan Lamens 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 · 922 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 47.9%±4.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 34% 50.3%±4.5 43.3%
BH down the line 7% 43.8%±9.0 46.8%
FH inside-out 6% 63.5%±9.0 52.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 28.8%±9.0 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 53.4%±12.0 40.4%
FH through the middle 2% 47.1%±14.1 45.1%
BH slice down the line 1% 34.4%±13.6 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 792 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 53.3%±5.2 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 57.1%±6.0 52.2%
FH through the middle 18% 53.8%±6.5 45.8%
BH through the middle 16% 39.5%±6.7 46.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 48.7%±8.0 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 51.6%±10.3 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 639 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 50.1%±4.3 46.7%
FH through the middle 25% 47.6%±6.2 41.3%
FH down the line 15% 46.5%±7.6 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 2% 33.8%±13.2 29.2%
FH slice down the line 2% 25.4%±12.9 24.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 546 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 46.3%±5.6 47.9%
BH through the middle 31% 39.0%±5.8 42.7%
BH down the line 9% 54.9%±9.9 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 8% 32.3%±9.8 33.4%
FH inside-out 5% 54.9%±11.9 54.1%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 39.4%±12.0 38.7%
FH inside-in 2% 64.3%±14.2 54.7%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 35.8%±14.4 48.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Suzan Lamens's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 225 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 32% 67% / 66%
Body 19% 21% 57% / 57%
T 42% 46% 73% / 68%

1,099 normal · 56 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 41% 71% / 66%
Body 21% 21% 60% / 56%
T 36% 38% 66% / 64%

888 normal · 169 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% 60.5%±3.7 n=437 53% ▲
Body19% 58.1%±5.1 n=225 4% ▼
T43% 58.5%±3.5 n=493 43%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 58.6%±3.7 n=445 57% ▲
Body21% 57.4%±5.1 n=224 6% ▼
T37% 57.2%±4.0 n=388 37%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.89).
Optimal mix: +0.5 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: −4.0±2.5 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. (715 repeats, 1,433 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 228 48% +4.2±5.1
1stAd courtT 214 38% +2.9±5.1
1stAd courtWide 252 41% +6.1±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 254 43% −0.1±4.8
1stDeuce courtT 237 38% +5.6±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 272 37% +3.1±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 200 55% −0.5±5.4
2ndAd courtT 61 50% −5.0±8.6
2ndAd courtWide 158 45% −8.3±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 236 55% +0.6±5.0
2ndDeuce courtT 129 58% +2.4±6.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 67 54% ±0.0±8.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 70% · +6.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 64% · +0.5±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 61% · −3.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 59% · −5.0±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 58% · −6.3±9.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 56% · +7.3±8.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.1% · won 59% · +9.7±10.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 57% · +7.9±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 55% · +6.2±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 55% · +5.8±8.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 55% · +6.2±5.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 58% · +9.0±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 54% · +5.5±6.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 55% · +6.4±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.0% · won 53% · +3.8±6.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Suzan Lamens 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 2.0% · won 57% · +6.9±6.3 vs own baseline · +9.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Bondar (1/8), Joanne Zuger (3/9)
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 63% · +13.5±11.8 vs own baseline · +29.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +8.2±10.8 vs own baseline · +13.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Joanne Zuger (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 55% · +5.7±9.0 vs own baseline · +4.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tamara Zidansek (3/6), Veronika Erjavec (6/10)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.3% · won 59% · +9.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +15.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 60% · +9.9±12.6 vs own baseline · +14.0 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 · return +1+1.9322
FH to the middle · return+1.8471
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.7184
FH to their backhand · rally+1.6769
BH to the middle · rally+1.3747

Most exposed to

Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.4158
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.3190
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.8129
BH to the middle · return +1−0.9154
FH to their forehand · rally−0.8964

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.60, Caroline Wozniacki +2.21, Daria Kasatkina +1.67, Tatjana Maria +1.63, Sara Errani +1.55

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.30, Angelique Kerber +2.08, Marie Bouzkova +1.92, Elina Avanesyan +1.63, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.57

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sloane Stephens, Karolina Muchova, Caroline Wozniacki, Ons Jabeur, Magda Linette

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands20%
Avg rally length4.8
T serves · deuce43%
Forehand share56%
Deep returns36%
Through the middle31%
Points at net9%
Wide serves · ad42%
T serves · ad37%
1st serve in62%
Serve & volley0%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Backhand slice12%
Wide serves · deuce38%
Chipped returns5%
Point-ending shots20.5%
Unforced errors / shot8.9%
FH down the line22%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Eva Vedder 2022–2026 plan v
  3. Lucia Bronzetti 2021–2025 plan v
  4. Elina Svitolina 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Johanna Larsson 2013–2019 plan v
  7. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v
  8. Nadia Podoroska 2020–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013
  3. Monica Seles 1990–2003

Charted matches