RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 24 charted matches · 2022–2026

Victoria Mboko

Archetype: Forehand line-changer · Backhand line-changer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.9% ±3.4 raw 57.8% · tour 56.3% · 1,674 points
Return points won 47.5% ±3.5 raw 43.9% · tour 43.7% · 1,660 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 −0.14 ±0.12 better than 29% of WTA · raw −0.15
Shot selection −0.26 ±0.13 better than 23% of WTA · raw −0.27
Execution +0.45 ±0.62 better than 77% of WTA · raw +0.34
Tactical adaptability +0.24 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 24 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.70 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 34% 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 8,380 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Victoria Mboko 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 forehand side

position worth 43% to the average player · 483 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 46.9%±5.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 31% 39.6%±6.2 41.3%
FH down the line 16% 50.0%±8.3 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 33.0%±10.8 29.2%
FH slice crosscourt 5% 35.8%±12.0 31.9%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 476 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 49.2%±7.0 52.2%
FH through the middle 22% 50.5%±7.4 45.8%
BH through the middle 17% 49.8%±8.1 46.2%
FH crosscourt 16% 59.9%±8.2 52.7%
BH down the line 11% 45.1%±9.7 50.0%
BH crosscourt 9% 51.1%±10.5 50.9%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 440 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 45.7%±6.3 43.3%
BH crosscourt 34% 52.1%±6.3 47.6%
BH down the line 18% 47.8%±8.3 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 29.5%±10.9 34.4%
BH slice down the line 4% 39.8%±13.4 31.7%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 41.4%±13.9 40.4%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 290 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 20% 53.9%±9.2 53.0%
BH through the middle 19% 49.7%±9.5 46.2%
FH through the middle 18% 54.0%±9.7 46.5%
BH down the line 15% 44.6%±10.3 50.6%
FH crosscourt 13% 46.6%±10.7 52.3%
BH crosscourt 12% 44.9%±10.9 50.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Victoria Mboko's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 164 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 50% 67% / 66%
Body 22% 20% 60% / 57%
T 34% 30% 74% / 68%

827 normal · 40 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 60% ▲ 71% / 66%
Body 25% 18% 58% / 56%
T 28% 23% 68% / 64%

679 normal · 124 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
Wide44% 55.7%±4.0 n=382 44%
Body22% 55.1%±5.5 n=192 7% ▼
T34% 62.3%±4.4 n=293 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide50% 60.0%±3.9 n=399 65% ▲
Body24% 54.4%±5.5 n=189 8% ▼
T27% 57.4%±5.2 n=215 27%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.30).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.85 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: −0.2±4.2 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. (552 repeats, 1,070 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 75 51% +6.7±8.0
1stAd courtT 224 36% +0.6±5.0
1stAd courtWide 161 38% +3.4±5.8
1stDeuce courtBody 101 42% −0.8±7.1
1stDeuce courtT 154 34% +1.4±5.7
1stDeuce courtWide 286 36% +2.4±4.5
2ndAd courtBody 136 61% +6.1±6.2
2ndAd courtT 72 59% +4.3±8.0
2ndAd courtWide 120 45% −8.8±6.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 157 53% −1.9±6.0
2ndDeuce courtT 85 54% −2.3±7.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 84 47% −7.2±7.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 3.2% · won 64% · −1.2±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 63% · −1.6±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 61% · −3.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 61% · −3.9±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 60% · −4.8±10.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.8% · won 56% · +9.8±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.1% · won 54% · +7.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 55% · +8.1±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.4% · won 53% · +6.5±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 52% · +5.7±10.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.7% · won 54% · +5.3±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 54% · +5.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 55% · +5.7±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.5% · won 56% · +7.1±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 54% · +4.8±9.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 60% · +11.8±12.7 vs own baseline · +27.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +8.3±12.0 vs own baseline · +21.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (4/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.1% · won 54% · +5.3±9.9 vs own baseline · +8.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (8/12), Marie Bouzkova (7/10)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 54% · +5.7±10.3 vs own baseline · +9.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mirra Andreeva (8/13), Marie Bouzkova (6/7)
  5. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, deep → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 56% · +7.1±11.9 vs own baseline · +19.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elena Rybakina (4/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 54% · +6.0±11.8 vs own baseline · +8.5 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 their forehand · rally+2.2247
BH to their backhand · return +1+1.7140
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.6293
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.6382
BH to the middle · return +1+1.6149

Most exposed to

Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.9120
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.9157
BH to their backhand · rally−1.4375
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.0178
BH to their backhand · return−0.9172

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.48, Caroline Wozniacki +2.10, Daria Kasatkina +1.50, Sara Errani +1.43, Tatjana Maria +1.26

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.24, Angelique Kerber +1.90, Marie Bouzkova +1.86, Elina Avanesyan +1.66, Katie Volynets +1.46

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sloane Stephens, Karolina Muchova, Caroline Wozniacki, Ons Jabeur, Magda Linette

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line27%
Through the middle34%
Wide serves · ad50%
FH down the line33%
1st serve in65%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Chipped returns12%
Unforced errors / shot10.8%
Point-ending shots24.2%
Forehand share54%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice11%
Avg rally length4.0
Deep returns31%
T serves · deuce34%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Run-around forehands3%
Points at net3%
T serves · ad27%

Plays most like

  1. Cristina Bucsa 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Irina Camelia Begu 2015–2024 plan v
  3. Sorana Cirstea 2014–2026 plan v
  4. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  5. Belinda Bencic 2014–2026 plan v
  6. Alison Riske Amritraj 2014–2022 plan v
  7. Karolina Pliskova 2013–2026 plan v
  8. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  3. Dinara Safina 2007–2011

Charted matches