RallyIQ

WTA · Left-handed · 11 charted matches · 2020–2025

Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva

Archetype: Ad-court slider · Avoids the wide serve

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 53.3% ±3.5 raw 51.7% · tour 56.3% · 818 points
Return points won 44.9% ±3.5 raw 45.6% · tour 43.7% · 844 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 −0.24 ±0.23 better than 12% of WTA · raw −0.21
Shot selection +0.40 ±0.20 better than 90% of WTA · raw +0.46
Execution −0.70 ±0.67 better than 27% of WTA · raw −0.23
Tactical adaptability −0.14 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 11 matches
Adaptation speed −0.12 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.81 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 23% 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 4,964 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva 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 · 355 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 40.6%±6.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 37% 43.6%±6.6 43.3%
BH down the line 17% 47.3%±9.2 46.8%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 336 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 50.9%±5.9 46.7%
FH through the middle 30% 36.1%±7.2 41.3%
FH down the line 13% 39.6%±10.1 44.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 320 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 50.0%±8.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 21% 49.0%±8.8 45.8%
FH down the line 21% 50.5%±8.9 52.2%
BH through the middle 15% 44.5%±9.9 46.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 45.9%±10.9 50.9%
BH down the line 8% 50.0%±12.4 50.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 218 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 46.9%±7.2 47.0%
FH through the middle 24% 41.5%±9.5 41.5%
FH down the line 19% 40.8%±10.3 46.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 115 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 23% 22% 68% / 66%
Body 37% 44% 49% / 57%
T 40% 33% 64% / 68%

390 normal · 27 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 49% 57% / 66%
Body 32% 35% 53% / 56%
T 19% 16% 65% / 64%

303 normal · 88 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
Wide23% 52.3%±7.3 n=97 38% ▲
Body37% 47.7%±6.0 n=155 22% ▼
T40% 52.9%±5.9 n=165 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 52.4%±5.5 n=191 49%
Body33% 51.1%±6.5 n=129 18% ▼
T18% 56.0%±8.1 n=71 33% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.79 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: −9.3±5.4 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. (266 repeats, 520 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 77 41% −2.6±7.8
1stAd courtT 94 40% +4.5±7.2
1stAd courtWide 102 40% +6.0±7.0
1stDeuce courtBody 94 48% +5.6±7.4
1stDeuce courtT 79 33% +0.6±7.4
1stDeuce courtWide 132 38% +4.4±6.3
2ndAd courtBody 62 56% +1.0±8.5
2ndAd courtT 37 56% +1.0±10.0
2ndAd courtWide 29 58% +4.2±10.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 65 57% +2.7±8.4
2ndDeuce courtT 15 55% −0.9±12.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 50 49% −4.9±9.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 6.1% · won 60% · +5.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 55% · +1.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 53% · −0.9±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 4.5% · won 51% · −2.9±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 51% · −3.7±11.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.4% · won 59% · +11.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.6% · won 54% · +7.0±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 52% · +5.0±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 51% · +4.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.2% · won 49% · +2.4±10.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 54% · +6.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.4% · won 52% · +4.7±7.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH down the line used 2.3% · won 55% · +7.6±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.9% · won 54% · +7.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 51% · +3.9±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 51% · +5.9±8.4 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefanie Voegele (5/11), Anouk Koevermans (20/37)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH inside-out → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +8.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +13.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anouk Koevermans (8/14)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 50% · +5.5±10.8 vs own baseline · +0.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Linda Fruhvirtova (2/6), Stefanie Voegele (4/7)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 52% · +6.8±12.6 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Anouk Koevermans (1/6)
  5. FH down the line → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 50% · +5.7±13.0 vs own baseline · +5.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 49% · +4.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +7.6 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

FH to their backhand · rally+3.1465
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.8191
Body 1st serve · ad court+0.7129
FH to the middle · return+0.6240
BH to the middle · rally+0.4280

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · rally−2.1204
FH to their backhand · rally−1.5390
BH to their forehand · return−1.3130
FH to their forehand · rally−1.0312
FH to their backhand · return +1−1.0123

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sara Sorribes Tormo, Caroline Wozniacki, Linda Fruhvirtova, Daria Kasatkina, Magdalena Frech

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.9
Forehand share58%
Wide serves · ad49%
Through the middle32%
Deep returns35%
T serves · deuce40%
1st serve in64%
Unforced errors / shot10.8%
BH down the line20%
Serve & volley0%
Run-around forehands5%
Backhand slice4%
Points at net4%
Point-ending shots20.2%
FH down the line25%
Drop shots / shot0.6%
Chipped returns1%
T serves · ad18%
Wide serves · deuce23%

Plays most like

  1. Sara Bejlek 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Beatriz Haddad Maia 2019–2025 plan v
  3. Martina Trevisan 2019–2023 plan v
  4. Jil Teichmann 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Arantxa Rus 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Lesia Tsurenko 2013–2024 plan v
  7. Olga Danilovic 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Diana Shnaider 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Monica Seles 1990–2003
  2. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches