RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2025–2026

Tereza Valentova

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Rallies through the middle

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.0% ±3.5 raw 58.0% · tour 56.3% · 1,029 points
Return points won 47.0% ±3.6 raw 45.2% · tour 43.7% · 1,076 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 −0.19 ±0.10 better than 19% of WTA · raw −0.18
Shot selection −0.15 ±0.18 better than 33% of WTA · raw −0.13
Execution −0.48 ±0.63 better than 34% of WTA · raw −0.35
Tactical adaptability +0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.94 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 14% 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 5,026 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tereza Valentova 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 middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 300 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 23% 44.6%±8.6 45.8%
FH crosscourt 22% 43.2%±8.7 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 56.4%±9.3 52.2%
BH through the middle 14% 36.5%±10.1 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 43.5%±11.4 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 45.5%±12.3 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 235 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 49.0%±7.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 32% 40.9%±8.3 41.3%
FH down the line 11% 43.4%±12.0 44.9%
FH slice crosscourt 9% 33.5%±12.3 31.9%
FH slice through the middle 7% 30.1%±12.6 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 218 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 42.2%±8.4 43.3%
BH crosscourt 28% 42.1%±9.0 47.6%
BH down the line 15% 51.6%±11.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 12% 34.5%±11.5 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 44.4%±12.5 40.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 178 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 26% 48.9%±10.1 46.5%
FH crosscourt 25% 49.2%±10.3 52.3%
BH through the middle 17% 46.5%±11.6 46.2%
FH down the line 16% 52.2%±11.7 53.0%
BH down the line 11% 50.3%±13.0 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Tereza Valentova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 111 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 58% 71% ▲ 67% / 66%
Body 13% 8% 58% / 57%
T 29% 21% ▼ 74% / 68%

516 normal · 24 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 36% 70% / 66%
Body 13% 13% 51% / 56%
T 55% 52% 62% / 64%

401 normal · 87 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
Wide58% 58.8%±4.4 n=315 56% ▼
Body13% 53.3%±8.2 n=71 0% ▼
T29% 59.7%±5.9 n=154 44% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.40).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide32% 61.7%±5.8 n=158 48% ▲
Body13% 51.6%±8.5 n=63 0% ▼
T55% 57.3%±4.7 n=267 52% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.84 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: −3.6±5.3 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. (379 repeats, 619 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 49 42% −1.9±9.1
1stAd courtT 123 34% −1.1±6.3
1stAd courtWide 137 37% +2.9±6.2
1stDeuce courtBody 85 41% −1.9±7.5
1stDeuce courtT 123 39% +6.8±6.5
1stDeuce courtWide 118 38% +4.0±6.6
2ndAd courtBody 81 61% +5.8±7.6
2ndAd courtT 25 59% +4.1±10.9
2ndAd courtWide 101 55% +1.5±7.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 128 48% −6.1±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 63 55% −1.4±8.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 41 57% +2.8±9.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.5% · won 64% · +1.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 64% · +1.1±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 60% · −3.0±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.9% · won 58% · −4.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 56% · −6.3±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.0% · won 55% · +9.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.9% · won 52% · +6.2±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 53% · +6.4±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.7% · won 52% · +5.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 6.0% · won 51% · +4.3±10.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.4% · won 48% · +7.3±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 5.9% · won 43% · +2.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 6.3% · won 42% · +0.8±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 41% · +0.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 40% · −0.5±9.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 50% · +4.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +1.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 49% · +2.9±12.7 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.7% · won 49% · +2.8±13.0 vs own baseline · +7.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 45% · −0.4±12.2 vs own baseline · +6.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 45% · −0.4±12.2 vs own baseline · −3.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jaqueline Cristian (4/6)
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 44% · −1.4±12.1 vs own baseline · −3.8 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 · serve +1+1.9122
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.4157
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.3154
FH to their backhand · rally+0.8193
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.8158

Most exposed to

Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.0128
T 1st serve · ad court−0.9201
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.7149
BH to their backhand · rally−0.4138
FH to the middle · return−0.2210

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +1.83, Caroline Wozniacki +1.24, Tatjana Maria +1.20, Angelique Kerber +0.76, Daria Kasatkina +0.75

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.54, Angelique Kerber +1.38, Marie Bouzkova +1.16, Elina Avanesyan +1.04, Katie Volynets +0.82

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jasmine Paolini, Magda Linette, Naomi Osaka, Iva Jovic, Ons Jabeur

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce58%
Through the middle38%
T serves · ad55%
Unforced errors / shot14.1%
BH down the line27%
Drop shots / shot2.6%
Forehand share57%
Point-ending shots28.2%
Deep returns35%
Backhand slice17%
Serve & volley0%
Chipped returns9%
1st serve in61%
Run-around forehands4%
FH down the line27%
Points at net5%
Avg rally length3.7
Wide serves · ad32%
T serves · deuce29%

Plays most like

  1. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  2. Kaia Kanepi 2013–2023 plan v
  3. Solana Sierra 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Madison Keys 2014–2026 plan v
  5. Jessica Bouzas Maneiro 2024–2026 plan v
  6. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  7. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  8. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  2. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006
  3. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013

Charted matches