RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2015–2026

Tatjana Maria

Archetype: Chip returner · Slice-heavy

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.2% ±2.9 raw 58.5% · tour 56.3% · 1,417 points
Return points won 44.0% ±2.9 raw 42.6% · tour 43.7% · 1,472 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 +0.17 ±0.11 better than 82% of WTA · raw +0.18
Shot selection −4.80 ±0.55 better than 0% of WTA · raw −4.77
Execution +1.80 ±0.44 better than 98% of WTA · raw +2.02
Tactical adaptability +0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed −0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.32 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 3% 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 7,867 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tatjana Maria 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 · 518 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 54% 43.7%±4.7 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 27% 37.3%±6.3 34.4%
BH slice down the line 14% 37.0%±8.4 31.7%
BH through the middle 3% 35.3%±13.7 43.3%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 334 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH slice through the middle 37% 44.3%±6.9 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 27% 32.8%±7.3 31.9%
FH slice down the line 16% 38.2%±9.4 24.3%
FH crosscourt 10% 35.3%±10.9 46.7%
FH down the line 4% 39.9%±13.6 44.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 289 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 58% 41.1%±5.9 39.6%
BH slice through the middle 30% 36.1%±7.6 33.2%
BH slice down the line 7% 22.4%±11.0 28.7%
BH through the middle 4% 50.3%±14.8 43.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 239 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 55% 42.9%±6.6 38.7%
BH slice through the middle 28% 36.0%±8.4 33.4%
BH slice down the line 14% 43.0%±11.2 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −4 How much less varied Tatjana Maria's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 151 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 39% 70% / 66%
Body 14% 15% 60% / 57%
T 48% 46% 75% / 68%

685 normal · 46 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 24% 25% 74% / 66%
Body 10% 12% 54% / 56%
T 66% 63% 68% / 64%

563 normal · 105 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% 61.6%±4.5 n=281 54% ▲
Body14% 53.8%±7.1 n=103 0% ▼
T47% 58.3%±4.2 n=347 46% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.21).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide24% 60.1%±5.9 n=159 39% ▲
Body11% 49.2%±8.1 n=72 0% ▼
T65% 58.0%±3.8 n=437 61% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.92 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: −3.5±5.0 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. (583 repeats, 778 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 117 42% −2.3±6.7
1stAd courtT 131 44% +8.4±6.4
1stAd courtWide 203 42% +7.3±5.3
1stDeuce courtBody 122 39% −3.3±6.5
1stDeuce courtT 195 34% +1.5±5.2
1stDeuce courtWide 152 39% +5.1±6.0
2ndAd courtBody 100 53% −1.6±7.2
2ndAd courtT 37 56% +1.0±10.0
2ndAd courtWide 116 54% +0.6±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 108 50% −4.2±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 117 41% −15.3±6.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 60 42% −11.4±8.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle used 2.4% · won 60% · −4.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 60% · −3.8±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt used 3.2% · won 60% · −4.5±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt used 2.3% · won 54% · −10.8±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle used 2.8% · won 53% · −11.0±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 4.5% · won 53% · +11.3±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH slice through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 51% · +9.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, deep used 5.7% · won 48% · +6.2±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 47% · +5.4±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt used 4.7% · won 45% · +3.0±10.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH slice down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 2.8% · won 46% · +5.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH slice through the middle → FH slice through the middle used 2.9% · won 45% · +4.9±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH slice through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 6.7% · won 43% · +2.4±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 8.7% · won 43% · +2.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH slice through the middle → BH slice through the middle used 2.3% · won 43% · +2.6±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 2.6% · won 48% · +6.6±8.9 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Laura Pigossi (4/13), Sorana Cirstea (4/9)
  2. FH slice through the middle → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 1.8% · won 48% · +6.1±10.1 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pemra Ozgen (3/7), Laura Pigossi (6/12)
  3. FH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle used 0.9% · won 50% · +8.2±12.3 vs own baseline · +27.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH slice down the line → BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 1.3% · won 48% · +6.5±11.1 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Suzan Lamens (4/10), Laura Pigossi (7/8)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 0.8% · won 47% · +5.9±12.5 vs own baseline · +15.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH slice crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH slice down the line used 0.8% · won 46% · +4.8±12.4 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 slice to their backhand · rally+5.5171
BH slice to their backhand · serve +1+3.8142
FH slice to their forehand · rally+3.2149
FH slice to the middle · rally+2.9233
FH slice to the middle · return+2.6218

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−1.9133
Body 1st serve · ad court−0.5165
Body 1st serve · deuce court−0.4161
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.5329
FH to the middle · return+0.6309

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo −0.40, Caroline Wozniacki −0.71, Daria Kasatkina −1.21, Angelique Kerber −1.23, Maja Chwalinska −1.25

Favourable matchups

Elina Avanesyan +2.68, Marie Bouzkova +2.56, Angelique Kerber +2.53, Sorana Cirstea +2.45, Alize Cornet +2.39

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.

Chipped returns76%
Backhand slice89%
T serves · ad65%
BH down the line32%
Run-around forehands22%
Points at net16%
Deep returns40%
T serves · deuce47%
Drop shots / shot2.5%
Avg rally length4.5
Serve & volley1%
Through the middle28%
Wide serves · deuce38%
FH down the line24%
1st serve in57%
Point-ending shots16.5%
Wide serves · ad24%
Unforced errors / shot6.0%
Forehand share46%

Plays most like

  1. Roberta Vinci 2012–2017 plan v
  2. Diane Parry 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Ashleigh Barty 2013–2022 plan v
  4. Kirsten Flipkens 2013–2022 plan v
  5. Francesca Schiavone 2006–2017 plan v
  6. Justine Henin 1999–2010 plan v
  7. Amelie Mauresmo 1999–2009 plan v
  8. Viktorija Golubic 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Justine Henin 1999–2010
  2. Amelie Mauresmo 1999–2009
  3. Steffi Graf 1985–1999

Charted matches