RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 16 charted matches · 2019–2026

Tamara Zidansek

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.1% ±2.9 raw 56.5% · tour 56.3% · 1,500 points
Return points won 46.1% ±3.0 raw 43.9% · tour 43.7% · 1,373 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 −0.10 ±0.09 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.10
Shot selection +0.29 ±0.17 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.31
Execution −0.43 ±0.41 better than 36% of WTA · raw −0.32
Tactical adaptability +0.22 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 16 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 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 8,005 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tamara Zidansek 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 · 615 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 30% 48.1%±5.8 43.3%
BH crosscourt 26% 52.8%±6.2 47.6%
BH down the line 12% 38.4%±8.3 46.8%
FH inside-out 8% 50.7%±10.0 52.5%
BH slice through the middle 7% 26.4%±9.1 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 38.5%±10.3 40.4%
FH inside-in 4% 52.7%±12.7 55.6%
BH slice down the line 3% 38.8%±13.2 31.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 484 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 28% 48.1%±6.6 52.2%
FH crosscourt 26% 51.8%±6.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 16% 53.2%±8.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 14% 41.2%±8.6 46.2%
BH crosscourt 8% 50.3%±10.8 50.9%
BH down the line 4% 46.0%±13.5 50.0%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 74.0%±13.0 69.7%
FH down the line + approach 2% 70.1%±13.5 68.6%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 399 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 49.1%±6.0 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 43.9%±7.8 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 46.4%±8.2 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 29.2%±11.3 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 5% 30.2%±11.8 31.9%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 294 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 64.8%±7.6 53.3%
FH crosscourt 29% 63.6%±7.7 54.0%
FH through the middle 19% 49.5%±9.4 45.5%
BH through the middle 11% 55.2%±11.2 46.3%
BH crosscourt 6% 58.1%±13.3 52.5%
FH down the line + approach 3% 71.0%±13.6 71.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Tamara Zidansek's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 156 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 38% 64% / 66%
Body 35% 24% ▼ 55% / 57%
T 26% 38% ▲ 68% / 68%

737 normal · 34 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 42% 63% / 66%
Body 27% 27% 52% / 56%
T 32% 31% 64% / 64%

601 normal · 122 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
Wide39% 61.4%±4.4 n=303 40%
Body34% 51.9%±4.8 n=265 19% ▼
T26% 62.8%±5.2 n=203 41% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.009): serve T more. Gap 4.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 55.3%±4.5 n=301 48% ▲
Body27% 51.9%±5.5 n=194 12% ▼
T32% 55.7%±5.1 n=228 40% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.59).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.86 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: +5.8±4.3 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. (429 repeats, 1,033 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 97 38% −6.0±7.1
1stAd courtT 123 38% +2.2±6.4
1stAd courtWide 204 37% +2.4±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 123 48% +5.6±6.6
1stDeuce courtT 175 36% +3.8±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 154 32% −2.4±5.6
2ndAd courtBody 85 47% −8.5±7.7
2ndAd courtT 61 62% +7.1±8.4
2ndAd courtWide 83 57% +3.2±7.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 113 51% −3.9±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 81 60% +4.2±7.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 69 57% +2.9±8.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 63% · +4.6±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 62% · +3.2±10.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 59% · +0.8±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.4% · won 58% · −0.3±8.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 56% · −2.3±9.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.7% · won 60% · +12.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 59% · +10.5±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 55% · +7.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 55% · +6.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 54% · +5.7±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 59% · +8.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 56% · +6.5±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 56% · +6.3±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 57% · +6.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 55% · +5.2±10.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 62% · +12.5±11.4 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 62% · +12.4±12.5 vs own baseline · +27.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 57% · +7.4±10.8 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Yulia Putintseva (7/10), Paula Badosa (5/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +8.8±11.8 vs own baseline · +19.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Suzan Lamens (7/8)
  5. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 59% · +9.2±12.1 vs own baseline · +17.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 56% · +6.4±11.7 vs own baseline · +7.9 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 to the middle · serve +1+2.5155
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.5280
FH to their forehand · rally+1.2528
BH to the middle · return+1.2332
BH to the middle · return +1+1.1123

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−2.8382
BH to their backhand · return−2.3259
FH to the middle · return−2.0287
BH to the middle · return +1−1.6147
FH to the middle · return +1−1.4126

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.43, Caroline Wozniacki +2.17, Angelique Kerber +1.67, Daria Kasatkina +1.59, Sara Errani +1.41

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.96, Angelique Kerber +1.92, Marie Bouzkova +1.66, Elina Avanesyan +1.50, Linda Fruhvirtova +1.28

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Maja Chwalinska, Daria Saville, Daria Kasatkina, Caroline Wozniacki

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands24%
Forehand share59%
1st serve in68%
Avg rally length4.5
Points at net9%
Through the middle30%
Drop shots / shot1.9%
Backhand slice18%
Wide serves · ad42%
FH down the line29%
Serve & volley0%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Chipped returns8%
Unforced errors / shot9.9%
Point-ending shots22.4%
Deep returns30%
BH down the line17%
T serves · ad32%
T serves · deuce26%

Plays most like

  1. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  2. Daria Saville 2015–2024 plan v
  3. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Rebecca Peterson 2020–2023 plan v
  5. Jasmine Paolini 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Nadia Podoroska 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Daria Kasatkina 2015–2026 plan v
  8. Mayar Sherif 2021–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches