RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 21 charted matches · 2019–2026

Xin Yu Wang

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 57.7% ±3.1 raw 57.3% · tour 56.3% · 1,477 points
Return points won 42.1% ±3.1 raw 39.4% · tour 43.7% · 1,463 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 +0.04 ±0.10 better than 62% of WTA · raw +0.05
Shot selection +0.30 ±0.16 better than 78% of WTA · raw +0.32
Execution −0.76 ±0.77 better than 25% of WTA · raw −0.62
Tactical adaptability −0.23 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed −0.24 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.56 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 58% 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 6,627 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Xin Yu Wang 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 · 449 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 54.5%±6.8 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 60.4%±7.3 52.2%
FH through the middle 17% 45.1%±8.3 45.8%
BH through the middle 16% 61.4%±8.4 46.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 54.5%±9.8 50.9%
BH down the line 5% 53.7%±12.8 50.0%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 306 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 45.0%±6.6 46.7%
FH through the middle 30% 48.0%±7.8 41.3%
FH down the line 19% 44.8%±9.3 44.9%
FH slice through the middle 4% 25.3%±12.8 29.2%

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

position worth 45% to the average player · 290 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 46.2%±6.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 45.7%±8.1 43.3%
BH down the line 12% 47.1%±11.0 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 7% 25.3%±11.5 34.4%
FH inside-in 5% 53.3%±14.1 55.6%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 230 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 55.0%±9.2 52.3%
FH down the line 20% 49.4%±10.1 53.0%
FH through the middle 18% 51.3%±10.5 46.5%
BH crosscourt 15% 52.1%±11.2 50.8%
BH through the middle 14% 40.1%±11.1 46.2%
BH down the line 7% 59.8%±13.3 50.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −4 How much less varied Xin Yu Wang's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 181 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 48% 64% / 66%
Body 16% 17% 62% / 57%
T 35% 36% 70% / 68%

722 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 44% 66% / 66%
Body 15% 20% 48% / 56%
T 39% 36% 65% / 64%

571 normal · 139 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
Wide48% 56.4%±4.1 n=370 48%
Body16% 61.5%±6.5 n=123 1% ▼
T35% 60.6%±4.6 n=271 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.32).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 55.9%±4.3 n=325 45%
Body16% 48.9%±6.9 n=112 1% ▼
T38% 58.5%±4.7 n=273 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.71 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: −1.1±4.0 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. (468 repeats, 964 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 94 38% −5.9±7.2
1stAd courtT 171 32% −3.4±5.4
1stAd courtWide 205 28% −6.7±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 97 42% −1.0±7.2
1stDeuce courtT 182 31% −1.2±5.2
1stDeuce courtWide 212 34% +0.4±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 87 52% −3.3±7.6
2ndAd courtT 51 52% −2.6±9.1
2ndAd courtWide 102 55% +1.8±7.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 127 57% +2.5±6.5
2ndDeuce courtT 60 54% −1.8±8.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 74 46% −7.5±8.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 62% · −0.1±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 61% · −1.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.4% · won 61% · −1.0±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 60% · −2.3±10.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · −2.7±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.6% · won 58% · +15.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 53% · +11.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.3% · won 50% · +8.3±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 50% · +8.3±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.7% · won 51% · +9.3±11.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 61% · +8.7±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 7.8% · won 57% · +5.0±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 60% · +8.4±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 59% · +7.3±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.5% · won 56% · +4.5±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Xin Yu Wang 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 through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 59% · +9.5±11.7 vs own baseline · +18.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 58% · +7.7±12.0 vs own baseline · +9.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 55% · +5.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.8% · won 55% · +5.1±11.6 vs own baseline · +18.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Emma Raducanu (5/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 54% · +4.4±10.7 vs own baseline · +9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Emma Raducanu (4/10)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 54% · +4.2±11.7 vs own baseline · +9.7 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+1.1341
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.0132
FH to their forehand · rally+0.9418
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.9250
BH to their forehand · rally+0.4155

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−5.0315
FH to the middle · return−2.6254
FH to their forehand · return−2.2130
BH to their forehand · rally−1.9162
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.8275

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.03, Caroline Wozniacki +2.72, Daria Kasatkina +2.11, Katie Volynets +2.02, Sara Errani +1.99

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +1.53, Angelique Kerber +1.37, Marie Bouzkova +1.09, Elina Avanesyan +0.96, Katie Volynets +0.75

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Linda Fruhvirtova, Maja Chwalinska, Sara Sorribes Tormo, Linda Klimovicova, Nadia Podoroska

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share59%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Run-around forehands13%
Deep returns37%
Point-ending shots26.9%
Drop shots / shot2.1%
Wide serves · ad46%
FH down the line31%
Through the middle30%
Unforced errors / shot11.3%
T serves · ad38%
Serve & volley0%
Points at net7%
T serves · deuce35%
Chipped returns7%
Backhand slice10%
Avg rally length3.9
1st serve in60%
BH down the line16%

Plays most like

  1. Marta Kostyuk 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Nao Hibino 2016–2025 plan v
  3. Shelby Rogers 2014–2024 plan v
  4. Maria Sakkari 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Emma Navarro 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Katie Boulter 2018–2025 plan v
  7. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Anastasia Potapova 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

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

Charted matches