RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 17 charted matches · 2015–2026

Taylor Townsend

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.6% ±3.0 raw 57.3% · tour 56.3% · 1,290 points
Return points won 45.1% ±3.1 raw 40.9% · tour 43.7% · 1,301 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 ±0.07 better than 60% of WTA · raw +0.02
Shot selection +0.29 ±0.38 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.26
Execution −0.66 ±0.65 better than 28% of WTA · raw −0.85
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed −0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.14 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 6% 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 5,996 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Taylor Townsend 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 · 282 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 33% 52.3%±7.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 39.4%±8.3 43.3%
BH slice through the middle 12% 37.5%±10.9 34.4%
BH down the line 11% 47.7%±11.5 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 40.2%±12.0 40.4%
BH slice down the line 7% 33.4%±12.3 31.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 240 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 42.0%±6.9 46.7%
FH down the line 22% 43.0%±9.6 44.9%
FH through the middle 16% 43.6%±10.7 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 7% 29.3%±12.3 29.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 221 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 39.7%±8.2 52.7%
FH down the line 17% 57.7%±10.7 52.2%
FH through the middle 14% 37.6%±11.2 45.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 50.4%±11.6 50.9%
BH through the middle 12% 37.5%±11.7 46.2%
BH down the line 6% 39.4%±14.0 50.0%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 201 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 31% 39.8%±8.9 43.0%
BH crosscourt 29% 51.3%±9.3 47.8%
BH slice through the middle 12% 34.8%±11.7 33.2%
BH down the line 12% 43.7%±12.3 46.2%
BH slice down the line 5% 34.7%±14.1 28.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +11 How much less varied Taylor Townsend's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 139 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 35% 56% ▲ 64% / 66%
Body 25% 3% ▼ 55% / 57%
T 41% 41% 65% / 68%

643 normal · 32 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 52% ▲ 69% / 66%
Body 17% 12% 58% / 56%
T 41% 36% 62% / 64%

508 normal · 107 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
Wide36% 55.0%±5.0 n=240 41% ▲
Body24% 52.4%±6.0 n=159 8% ▼
T41% 56.2%±4.7 n=276 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.66).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 62.6%±4.6 n=270 59% ▲
Body16% 60.5%±7.1 n=99 1% ▼
T40% 57.0%±4.9 n=246 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.32).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.63 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: −0.5±3.9 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. (427 repeats, 829 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 74 36% −8.2±7.7
1stAd courtT 197 36% +0.4±5.2
1stAd courtWide 122 30% −4.0±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 88 46% +3.0±7.5
1stDeuce courtT 119 27% −4.9±6.0
1stDeuce courtWide 219 33% −1.4±4.9
2ndAd courtBody 96 54% −0.7±7.3
2ndAd courtT 98 54% −1.5±7.3
2ndAd courtWide 42 56% +2.1±9.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 122 55% +1.0±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 29 59% +3.0±10.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 94 48% −5.3±7.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 58% · −4.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 55% · −7.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 53% · −9.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 53% · −9.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 54% · −7.9±10.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → BH down the line, mid used 3.5% · won 50% · +6.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.4% · won 48% · +5.1±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 48% · +4.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.7% · won 42% · −1.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.4% · won 35% · −8.2±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 13.3% · won 53% · +8.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 50% · +5.1±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 44% · −0.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 44% · −0.8±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 44% · −1.1±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 Taylor Townsend wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 48% · +4.0±11.2 vs own baseline · +3.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elena Rybakina (1/7), Jennifer Brady (6/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 48% · +3.5±10.3 vs own baseline · +1.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Caroline Wozniacki (3/6), Elena Rybakina (5/8)
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.8% · won 49% · +4.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +7.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 45% · +1.2±12.7 vs own baseline · −7.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 42% · −2.2±12.4 vs own baseline · −9.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 42% · −2.6±12.7 vs own baseline · −11.7 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 backhand · return+4.1120
Wide 1st serve · ad court+3.4270
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.2145
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.6276
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.4240

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−3.4215
BH to their backhand · rally−2.4127
FH to their backhand · return +1−2.1145
BH to their forehand · return−0.5159
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.3152

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Caroline Wozniacki +2.51, Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.41, Angelique Kerber +2.05, Daria Kasatkina +1.88, Sara Errani +1.73

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +1.44, Sara Errani +1.31, Elina Avanesyan +1.03, Marie Bouzkova +1.01, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.60

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Alexandra Eala, Kayla Day, Caroline Wozniacki, Alize Cornet

Tactical fingerprint

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

Serve & volley17%
Points at net19%
Unforced errors / shot14.2%
Point-ending shots31.9%
Chipped returns24%
1st serve in67%
T serves · deuce41%
Forehand share55%
Deep returns34%
Wide serves · ad44%
Backhand slice20%
T serves · ad40%
FH down the line30%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Run-around forehands7%
Through the middle27%
BH down the line18%
Wide serves · deuce36%
Avg rally length3.6

Plays most like

  1. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Olivia Gadecki 2023–2026 plan v
  3. Barbora Strycova 2014–2023 plan v
  4. Barbora Krejcikova 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Caroline Garcia 2013–2025 plan v
  6. Johanna Konta 2013–2020 plan v
  7. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Amelie Mauresmo 1999–2009

Charted matches