RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 40 charted matches · 2018–2025

Veronika Kudermetova

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 59.0% ±2.7 raw 57.9% · tour 56.3% · 2,825 points
Return points won 44.0% ±2.8 raw 41.6% · tour 43.7% · 2,891 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 +0.11 ±0.06 better than 73% of WTA · raw +0.11
Shot selection +0.10 ±0.11 better than 55% of WTA · raw +0.11
Execution −0.90 ±0.37 better than 21% of WTA · raw −0.80
Tactical adaptability −0.14 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 39 matches
Adaptation speed −0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.41 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 75% 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 14,050 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Veronika Kudermetova 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 · 776 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 40.3%±4.4 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 43.2%±5.6 43.3%
BH down the line 11% 37.2%±7.8 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 43.2%±8.4 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 33.6%±8.2 34.4%
BH slice down the line 2% 22.9%±12.2 31.7%
BH drop shot crosscourt 2% 51.6%±14.5 47.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 774 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 23% 43.8%±5.8 52.7%
BH through the middle 18% 48.0%±6.4 46.2%
FH through the middle 17% 38.4%±6.6 45.8%
FH down the line 14% 48.8%±7.2 52.2%
BH down the line 12% 45.6%±7.7 50.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 42.8%±8.1 50.9%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 671 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 55% 44.8%±4.1 46.7%
FH through the middle 21% 35.6%±6.2 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 42.5%±7.2 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 26.3%±10.8 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 33.5%±13.3 31.9%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 518 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 52.4%±6.9 52.3%
BH through the middle 19% 48.1%±7.5 46.2%
FH through the middle 16% 49.3%±8.1 46.5%
FH down the line 13% 47.3%±8.8 53.0%
BH down the line 13% 37.8%±8.7 50.6%
BH crosscourt 11% 51.5%±9.4 50.8%
BH slice through the middle 2% 40.6%±14.7 45.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Veronika Kudermetova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 300 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 41% 63% / 66%
Body 17% 13% 53% / 57%
T 45% 46% 75% / 68%

1,385 normal · 76 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 41% 72% / 66%
Body 18% 12% 53% / 56%
T 41% 47% 60% / 64%

1,132 normal · 224 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
Wide39% 57.6%±3.3 n=569 39%
Body16% 53.5%±5.0 n=240 1% ▼
T45% 63.7%±3.0 n=652 60% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.003): serve T more. Gap 4.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 59.6%±3.3 n=553 56% ▲
Body17% 51.7%±5.1 n=232 2% ▼
T42% 54.8%±3.3 n=571 42%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.040): serve wide more. Gap 3.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 1.14 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: +0.8±3.0 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. (898 repeats, 1,839 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 210 42% −1.7±5.2
1stAd courtT 375 34% −1.8±3.9
1stAd courtWide 301 33% −1.4±4.3
1stDeuce courtBody 278 38% −4.4±4.6
1stDeuce courtT 304 30% −2.6±4.1
1stDeuce courtWide 348 32% −1.7±4.0
2ndAd courtBody 210 54% −1.1±5.3
2ndAd courtT 92 57% +1.9±7.4
2ndAd courtWide 204 53% −0.5±5.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 309 54% −0.1±4.5
2ndDeuce courtT 136 62% +5.9±6.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 119 48% −6.0±6.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 60% · −1.4±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · −3.8±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 57% · −4.1±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 56% · −4.8±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.3% · won 54% · −7.3±8.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.4% · won 54% · +12.7±7.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 57% · +15.3±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.1% · won 54% · +13.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 53% · +12.1±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.0% · won 54% · +13.1±9.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 52% · +8.5±6.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.1% · won 48% · +4.6±5.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 49% · +6.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.0% · won 49% · +5.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 48% · +5.1±10.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 57% · +12.7±11.2 vs own baseline · +21.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +11.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +15.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 53% · +9.2±10.2 vs own baseline · +5.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Katie Volynets (4/7)
  4. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +11.2±11.7 vs own baseline · +13.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 48% · +3.7±6.0 vs own baseline · −0.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Liudmila Samsonova (0/7), Barbora Krejcikova (2/8)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +6.9±10.7 vs own baseline · +0.6 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

Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+2.9235
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.2261
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.0257
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.7254
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.3652

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−3.8278
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.0204
BH to their forehand · return +1−1.8122
BH to the middle · return +1−1.1206
FH to their backhand · return−1.0209

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.33, Caroline Wozniacki +2.22, Angelique Kerber +1.57, Daria Kasatkina +1.51, Sara Errani +1.42

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +0.80, Angelique Kerber +0.35, Marie Bouzkova +0.18, Elina Avanesyan +0.10, Katie Volynets −0.11

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.

Unforced errors / shot13.1%
T serves · deuce45%
Point-ending shots28.9%
Deep returns36%
BH down the line24%
T serves · ad42%
Points at net7%
Wide serves · ad41%
Backhand slice15%
Through the middle28%
Serve & volley0%
FH down the line28%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Run-around forehands5%
Chipped returns5%
Avg rally length3.8
Forehand share51%
1st serve in59%

Plays most like

  1. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  3. Anett Kontaveit 2015–2023 plan v
  4. Shuai Zhang 2009–2026 plan v
  5. Ekaterina Alexandrova 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v
  7. Garbine Muguruza 2013–2023 plan v
  8. Eugenie Bouchard 2013–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  2. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  3. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010

Charted matches