RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2021–2026

Varvara Gracheva

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 54.5% ±3.5 raw 50.8% · tour 56.3% · 1,017 points
Return points won 45.8% ±3.5 raw 43.7% · tour 43.7% · 971 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 +0.06 ±0.12 better than 65% of WTA · raw +0.05
Shot selection +0.04 ±0.19 better than 49% of WTA · raw +0.02
Execution −0.42 ±0.65 better than 37% of WTA · raw −0.54
Tactical adaptability +0.13 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed −0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.32 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 84% 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 5,540 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Varvara Gracheva 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 · 338 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 42.5%±7.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 47.7%±9.2 45.8%
BH crosscourt 16% 48.2%±9.5 50.9%
FH down the line 13% 42.2%±10.1 52.2%
BH through the middle 10% 37.5%±10.8 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 45.3%±11.2 50.0%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 311 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 50% 52.6%±6.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 39.3%±8.0 43.3%
BH down the line 13% 40.6%±10.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 39.7%±12.7 34.4%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 269 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 42.7%±6.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 27% 36.8%±8.2 41.3%
FH down the line 20% 40.5%±9.4 44.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 180 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 50.6%±9.6 52.3%
FH through the middle 20% 43.4%±10.9 46.5%
BH crosscourt 15% 49.3%±12.0 50.8%
BH through the middle 14% 44.0%±12.0 46.2%
FH down the line 12% 44.3%±12.6 53.0%
BH down the line 8% 60.4%±13.6 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Varvara Gracheva's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 145 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 33% 64% / 66%
Body 30% 30% 52% / 57%
T 30% 38% 64% / 68%

491 normal · 40 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 28% ▼ 60% / 66%
Body 27% 29% 48% / 56%
T 36% 44% 56% / 64%

380 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
Wide40% 54.2%±5.3 n=211 40%
Body30% 52.4%±6.0 n=159 15% ▼
T30% 55.5%±5.9 n=161 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide35% 48.8%±5.8 n=169 50% ▲
Body27% 45.8%±6.4 n=132 12% ▼
T38% 46.8%±5.6 n=184 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 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: −4.9±7.4 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. (273 repeats, 713 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 75 40% −3.7±7.9
1stAd courtT 111 34% −1.7±6.6
1stAd courtWide 122 38% +3.3±6.5
1stDeuce courtBody 84 49% +6.3±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 88 34% +1.5±7.2
1stDeuce courtWide 150 35% +1.1±5.9
2ndAd courtBody 80 50% −5.5±7.8
2ndAd courtT 25 55% +0.4±11.0
2ndAd courtWide 56 51% −2.3±8.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 80 56% +1.3±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 67 58% +1.5±8.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 32 58% +4.5±10.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 57% · +2.5±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 53% · −0.8±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 52% · −1.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 51% · −2.6±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 4.5% · won 49% · −5.2±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.1% · won 55% · +6.4±11.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 9.1% · won 52% · +3.3±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.8% · won 52% · +3.3±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.1% · won 51% · +2.4±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.8% · won 50% · +1.4±11.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 54% · +6.9±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 52% · +4.8±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 52% · +5.6±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.0% · won 49% · +2.3±8.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 49% · +2.0±9.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Varvara Gracheva 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 → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 53% · +7.3±11.6 vs own baseline · +7.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sara Sorribes Tormo (7/11), Mirra Andreeva (5/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.0% · won 52% · +6.2±11.3 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daria Kasatkina (6/8)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 51% · +5.1±10.6 vs own baseline · +0.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (7/11)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 50% · +4.3±9.7 vs own baseline · +3.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Magda Linette (0/6), Daria Kasatkina (6/12)
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.5±12.3 vs own baseline · +14.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sara Sorribes Tormo (4/6), Mirra Andreeva (5/7)
  6. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.5±12.3 vs own baseline · +12.1 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 · return+1.6214
FH to the middle · return+0.8187
BH to their backhand · serve +1+0.6185
BH to their backhand · return+0.3151
Body 1st serve · deuce court+0.2159

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · return−3.3205
FH to their backhand · rally−3.2276
T 1st serve · ad court−2.2177
BH to their backhand · rally−1.6201
BH to their forehand · rally−1.4139

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.79, Caroline Wozniacki +3.32, Angelique Kerber +2.79, Daria Kasatkina +2.77, Sara Errani +2.63

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.62, Angelique Kerber +1.22, Marie Bouzkova +1.17, Linda Fruhvirtova +0.85, Shuai Zhang +0.80

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Elina Avanesyan, Caroline Wozniacki, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Lin Zhu, Qiang Wang

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns36%
Avg rally length4.4
Unforced errors / shot11.1%
Points at net8%
T serves · ad38%
Chipped returns10%
Point-ending shots23.8%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Serve & volley0%
Run-around forehands6%
Backhand slice11%
1st serve in61%
Through the middle26%
BH down the line17%
Wide serves · ad35%
Drop shots / shot0.8%
T serves · deuce30%
Forehand share50%
FH down the line24%

Plays most like

  1. R – plan v
  2. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Anna Blinkova 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Kimberly Birrell 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Iva Jovic 2024–2026 plan v
  7. Yue Yuan 2023–2026 plan v
  8. Andrea Petkovic 2010–2022 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marion Bartoli 2003–2013
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches