RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 10 charted matches · 2018–2026

Viktoria Hruncakova

Archetype: First-strike aggressor · Short-point player

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 58.1% ±3.3 raw 58.5% · tour 56.3% · 783 points
Return points won 45.0% ±3.4 raw 43.4% · tour 43.7% · 816 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 +0.30 ±0.09 better than 94% of WTA · raw +0.31
Shot selection −0.38 ±0.16 better than 18% of WTA · raw −0.36
Execution −0.82 ±0.52 better than 23% of WTA · raw −0.64
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.14 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 96% 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 3,790 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Viktoria Hruncakova 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 · 257 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 29% 51.1%±8.4 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 58.1%±9.5 52.2%
BH crosscourt 17% 56.5%±10.2 50.9%
FH through the middle 12% 50.3%±11.6 45.8%
BH through the middle 11% 41.3%±11.6 46.2%
BH down the line 10% 47.8%±12.1 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 177 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 53% 40.7%±7.6 46.7%
FH down the line 30% 58.9%±9.5 44.9%
FH through the middle 13% 30.8%±11.6 41.3%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 155 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 51.6%±8.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 28.7%±9.2 43.3%
BH down the line 15% 37.2%±12.0 46.8%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 138 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 54.2%±10.1 54.0%
BH through the middle 20% 43.1%±11.9 46.3%
FH down the line 14% 53.0%±13.1 53.3%
BH down the line 13% 61.0%±13.0 51.0%
FH through the middle 10% 50.3%±14.1 45.5%
BH crosscourt 10% 54.4%±14.1 52.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +15 How much less varied Viktoria Hruncakova's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 88 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 52% 68% / 66%
Body 8% 4% 54% / 57%
T 43% 44% 78% / 68%

381 normal · 27 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 41% 59% / 66%
Body 8% 2% 53% / 56%
T 49% 57% ▲ 66% / 64%

314 normal · 61 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
Wide50% 61.8%±5.2 n=203 50%
Body8% 56.9%±10.4 n=31 0% ▼
T43% 62.6%±5.6 n=174 50% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.53).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide43% 56.3%±5.9 n=162 50% ▲
Body7% 49.2%±11.1 n=25 0% ▼
T50% 55.7%±5.5 n=188 50%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.35).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.35 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: −0.5±6.0 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. (284 repeats, 479 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 72 47% +3.3±8.1
1stAd courtT 88 39% +3.2±7.4
1stAd courtWide 90 28% −6.7±6.7
1stDeuce courtBody 86 41% −1.4±7.5
1stDeuce courtT 81 29% −2.7±7.1
1stDeuce courtWide 98 32% −1.8±6.8
2ndAd courtBody 70 57% +1.5±8.2
2ndAd courtT 18 53% −1.9±11.8
2ndAd courtWide 55 55% +1.8±8.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 80 57% +2.2±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 49 55% −0.6±9.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 27 58% +4.4±10.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 67% · +2.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 65% · +0.4±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 64% · −1.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 63% · −1.6±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 61% · −4.0±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 6.3% · won 63% · +14.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.8% · won 52% · +3.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.3% · won 51% · +2.7±11.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.2% · won 50% · +1.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.8% · won 48% · −0.1±11.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 8.2% · won 58% · +5.7±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.0% · won 57% · +5.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.8% · won 54% · +1.6±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 50% · −1.9±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.3% · won 49% · −2.8±11.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 58% · +9.0±12.9 vs own baseline · +26.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 57% · +7.5±12.8 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kateryna Baindl (6/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 56% · +6.2±12.6 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (3/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 52% · +2.5±12.3 vs own baseline · +7.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (4/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 51% · +1.5±13.0 vs own baseline · −2.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kiki Bertens (5/7)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 49% · −0.9±12.4 vs own baseline · −1.3 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 1st serve · deuce court+0.9203
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.9174
FH to their backhand · rally+0.5192
T 1st serve · ad court±0.0188
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.3142

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−1.1131
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.1151
FH to the middle · rally−0.9133
T 1st serve · ad court−0.5135
BH to the middle · rally−0.5124

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Clara Burel, Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Arianne Hartono, Angelique Kerber

Tactical fingerprint

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

Point-ending shots31.0%
T serves · ad50%
Wide serves · deuce50%
Unforced errors / shot13.4%
Drop shots / shot2.3%
T serves · deuce43%
BH down the line23%
Forehand share55%
Chipped returns13%
Wide serves · ad43%
FH down the line29%
Serve & volley0%
Backhand slice9%
Deep returns30%
Run-around forehands4%
Avg rally length3.6
Points at net3%
1st serve in58%
Through the middle23%

Plays most like

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009 plan v
  2. Clara Tauson 2020–2026 plan v
  3. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015 plan v
  4. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 2014–2026 plan v
  5. Naomi Osaka 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  7. Rebecca Sramkova 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Maria Sharapova 2003–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009
  2. Lindsay Davenport 1995–2006
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches