RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 91 charted matches · 1997–2026

Venus Williams

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.1% ±2.4 raw 57.4% · tour 56.3% · 7,077 points
Return points won 46.9% ±2.5 raw 43.7% · tour 43.7% · 7,057 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 −0.04 ±0.07 better than 47% of WTA · raw −0.05
Shot selection +0.66 ±0.09 better than 98% of WTA · raw +0.64
Execution −0.28 ±0.26 better than 45% of WTA · raw −0.46
Tactical adaptability +0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 89 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.52 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 63% 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 34,510 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Venus Williams 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 · 1,926 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 46.1%±3.8 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 45.5%±4.2 52.2%
BH crosscourt 14% 49.9%±4.8 50.9%
FH through the middle 14% 40.3%±4.8 45.8%
BH through the middle 13% 43.7%±4.9 46.2%
BH down the line 9% 45.2%±5.8 50.0%
FH down the line + approach 3% 75.0%±8.6 68.6%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 65.8%±11.8 69.7%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 1,817 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 46.9%±2.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 26% 42.4%±3.7 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 46.7%±4.1 44.9%
FH down the line + approach 3% 62.8%±9.7 65.4%
FH slice through the middle 1% 25.8%±11.1 29.2%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 64.1%±13.5 63.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 1,793 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 45.8%±2.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 45.1%±3.8 43.3%
BH down the line 19% 48.5%±4.4 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 30.8%±7.7 34.4%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 39.4%±10.7 40.4%
BH slice down the line 1% 31.2%±11.2 31.7%
BH down the line + approach 1% 62.9%±12.1 70.2%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 78.4%±11.0 68.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 1,218 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 20% 52.9%±5.1 52.3%
FH down the line 18% 54.7%±5.3 53.0%
BH crosscourt 16% 55.2%±5.6 50.8%
FH through the middle 14% 45.7%±5.9 46.5%
BH through the middle 14% 41.7%±5.9 46.2%
BH down the line 11% 50.7%±6.6 50.6%
FH down the line + approach 3% 77.3%±9.0 69.2%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 69.9%±11.6 66.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Venus Williams's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 748 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 40% 68% / 66%
Body 28% 29% 62% / 57%
T 36% 31% 71% / 68%

3,449 normal · 181 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 28% 29% 72% / 66%
Body 34% 29% 61% / 56%
T 38% 43% 64% / 64%

2,789 normal · 567 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% 59.4%±2.2 n=1,320 51% ▲
Body28% 55.7%±2.5 n=1,016 13% ▼
T36% 56.9%±2.2 n=1,294 36%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide28% 58.6%±2.6 n=934 43% ▲
Body33% 55.6%±2.4 n=1,118 18% ▼
T39% 58.2%±2.2 n=1,304 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.26).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.50 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: ±0.0±2.1 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. (2,586 repeats, 4,218 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 476 41% −3.0±3.6
1stAd courtT 868 33% −2.2±2.6
1stAd courtWide 768 36% +1.3±2.8
1stDeuce courtBody 478 44% +1.8±3.6
1stDeuce courtT 749 33% +1.1±2.8
1stDeuce courtWide 1,086 35% +0.5±2.3
2ndAd courtBody 571 59% +4.4±3.3
2ndAd courtT 257 57% +1.6±4.8
2ndAd courtWide 421 57% +3.9±3.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 588 55% +0.9±3.3
2ndDeuce courtT 302 55% −0.7±4.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 432 55% +1.2±3.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 59% · −2.2±5.4 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 55% · −6.4±6.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 55% · −5.9±5.6 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 48% · −12.8±6.3 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 48% · −12.8±5.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 57% · +14.1±5.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.8% · won 53% · +9.9±4.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 51% · +8.2±5.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 52% · +9.4±6.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.0% · won 51% · +7.6±5.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 55% · +6.4±5.8 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 56% · +8.2±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 1.1% · won 57% · +9.0±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.1% · won 51% · +2.7±4.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 51% · +2.7±5.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Venus Williams 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 0.4% · won 59% · +11.8±8.8 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (9/13), Garbine Muguruza (9/9)
  2. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 59% · +11.6±9.0 vs own baseline · +11.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Petra Kvitova (4/8)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 56% · +8.3±7.3 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (12/21), Daria Kasatkina (7/12)
  4. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +12.3±9.6 vs own baseline · +14.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Serena Williams (6/8)
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 55% · +7.2±6.6 vs own baseline · +8.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anna Karolina Schmiedlova (1/6), Justine Henin (2/8)
  6. Body serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 57% · +9.8±9.1 vs own baseline · +10.1 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

FH volley to their forehand · rally+3.0221
BH to their forehand · return+2.5505
T 2nd serve · ad court+2.5382
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.2840
BH volley to their backhand · rally+2.1129

Most exposed to

FH slice to the middle · rally−1.6138
BH to their backhand · rally−1.61,561
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.3862
BH to their backhand · return−1.3592
BH slice to their backhand · rally−1.2266

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.00, Caroline Wozniacki +2.54, Daria Kasatkina +1.97, Angelique Kerber +1.89, Maja Chwalinska +1.88

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.93, Angelique Kerber +1.58, Marie Bouzkova +1.44, Elina Avanesyan +1.28, Katie Volynets +1.08

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Belinda Bencic, Tatjana Maria, Mirra Andreeva, Elina Svitolina, Karolina Muchova

Tactical fingerprint

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

Points at net11%
BH down the line25%
Point-ending shots26.9%
FH down the line32%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
T serves · ad39%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · deuce36%
Forehand share53%
1st serve in61%
Through the middle27%
Backhand slice8%
Avg rally length3.8
Wide serves · deuce36%
Run-around forehands3%
Chipped returns2%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
Wide serves · ad28%
Deep returns24%

Plays most like

  1. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v
  2. Iga Swiatek 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Louisa Chirico 2015–2017 plan v
  4. Simona Halep 2013–2022 plan v
  5. Elise Mertens 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Coco Gauff 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006 plan v
  8. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1988–2001

Charted matches