RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2017–2026

Viktorija Golubic

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.8% ±3.1 raw 53.3% · tour 56.3% · 1,320 points
Return points won 45.6% ±3.2 raw 41.3% · tour 43.7% · 1,317 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 −0.29 ±0.09 better than 8% of WTA · raw −0.30
Shot selection −0.97 ±0.19 better than 3% of WTA · raw −0.99
Execution +0.87 ±0.49 better than 88% of WTA · raw +0.71
Tactical adaptability −0.20 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 17 matches
Adaptation speed −0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.93 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 14% 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 7,489 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Viktorija Golubic 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 · 524 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 24% 44.6%±6.8 43.3%
BH crosscourt 21% 50.8%±7.2 47.6%
BH slice crosscourt 19% 55.2%±7.5 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 15% 45.2%±8.3 34.4%
BH down the line 11% 47.3%±9.2 46.8%
BH slice down the line 5% 29.0%±11.0 31.7%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 54.0%±14.3 49.1%
FH inside-out 2% 51.7%±15.0 52.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 499 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 20% 45.1%±7.5 45.8%
FH crosscourt 19% 50.0%±7.7 52.7%
FH down the line 18% 52.7%±7.9 52.2%
BH through the middle 17% 38.0%±7.8 46.2%
BH crosscourt 10% 57.6%±9.9 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 51.0%±11.5 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 4% 46.1%±13.1 44.8%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 40.3%±14.3 49.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 392 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 40.7%±6.2 46.7%
FH through the middle 21% 45.9%±8.1 41.3%
FH down the line 21% 43.5%±8.1 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 36.0%±11.9 29.2%
FH slice down the line 5% 41.8%±13.2 24.3%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 37.2%±13.3 31.9%
FH down the line + approach 3% 61.5%±14.4 65.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 253 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 26% 43.4%±8.7 38.7%
BH through the middle 16% 44.2%±10.5 42.7%
BH crosscourt 16% 46.0%±10.6 47.9%
BH slice through the middle 15% 40.2%±10.5 33.4%
BH down the line 13% 39.5%±10.9 46.7%
BH slice down the line 8% 42.0%±12.8 34.0%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Viktorija Golubic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 187 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 35% 54% / 66%
Body 36% 19% ▼ 65% / 57%
T 28% 46% ▲ 55% / 68%

632 normal · 52 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 33% 39% 57% / 66%
Body 31% 27% 54% / 56%
T 36% 33% 60% / 64%

499 normal · 135 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% 48.0%±5.0 n=245 21% ▼
Body34% 61.7%±4.9 n=235 49% ▲
T30% 50.7%±5.4 n=204 30%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.001): serve body more. Gap 8.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide35% 52.6%±5.2 n=220 35%
Body30% 51.7%±5.5 n=191 15% ▼
T35% 54.5%±5.1 n=223 50% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.78).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.61 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: +1.6±4.5 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. (378 repeats, 904 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 84 45% +1.0±7.7
1stAd courtT 168 33% −2.4±5.5
1stAd courtWide 165 27% −7.6±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 136 43% ±0.0±6.3
1stDeuce courtT 157 38% +6.2±5.8
1stDeuce courtWide 141 35% +0.6±6.0
2ndAd courtBody 97 49% −5.8±7.3
2ndAd courtT 20 53% −2.0±11.6
2ndAd courtWide 96 53% −0.3±7.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 118 53% −1.5±6.7
2ndDeuce courtT 74 54% −2.4±8.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 55 52% −1.9±8.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 61% · +4.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 62% · +5.5±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 57% · +0.8±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 5.7% · won 56% · −0.4±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.7% · won 56% · −0.7±9.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 59% · +11.9±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.0% · won 55% · +8.2±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.8% · won 53% · +6.0±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 52% · +4.7±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 52% · +4.9±11.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.6% · won 55% · +7.3±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → BH slice through the middle used 1.5% · won 56% · +7.7±11.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 56% · +7.7±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 55% · +6.6±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 55% · +6.8±11.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +11.0±12.2 vs own baseline · +24.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 57% · +9.1±12.6 vs own baseline · +17.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 53% · +5.2±10.4 vs own baseline · +9.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (4/7), Mirra Andreeva (6/7)
  4. Body serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 55% · +6.7±12.6 vs own baseline · +21.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Bianca Andreescu (5/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +5.0±11.7 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arantxa Rus (13/22)
  6. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 54% · +5.6±12.8 vs own baseline · +15.3 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

FH to their backhand · rally+2.8430
FH to the middle · return+2.4278
FH to the middle · serve +1+2.2208
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.8179
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.5159

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−4.8134
FH to their backhand · return−4.4123
BH to the middle · return−2.3318
FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.2215
FH to the middle · return−2.1289

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +2.57, Caroline Wozniacki +2.39, Angelique Kerber +2.08, Daria Kasatkina +1.84, Maja Chwalinska +1.67

Favourable matchups

Angelique Kerber +2.47, Sara Errani +2.27, Marie Bouzkova +2.21, Elina Avanesyan +2.08, Magdalena Frech +1.81

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Alexandra Eala, Magdalena Frech, Belinda Bencic, Angelique Kerber, Clara Tauson

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle37%
Avg rally length4.7
Backhand slice33%
Drop shots / shot2.6%
1st serve in67%
Chipped returns21%
Deep returns37%
BH down the line21%
Points at net8%
FH down the line29%
Run-around forehands7%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · ad35%
Wide serves · deuce36%
Wide serves · ad35%
Forehand share51%
T serves · deuce30%
Unforced errors / shot8.1%
Point-ending shots18.2%

Plays most like

  1. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  2. Kateryna Baindl 2017–2023 plan v
  3. R – plan v
  4. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Ajla Tomljanovic 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Zarina Diyas 2014–2025 plan v
  7. Lin Zhu 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Anastasia Myskina 2002–2006

Charted matches