RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 30 charted matches · 2013–2026

Yulia Putintseva

Archetype: Rarely serves the T · Patient builder

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 56.9% ±2.8 raw 53.9% · tour 56.3% · 2,118 points
Return points won 44.2% ±2.8 raw 40.2% · tour 43.7% · 2,082 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 ±0.06 better than 48% of WTA · raw −0.05
Shot selection −0.42 ±0.13 better than 15% of WTA · raw −0.44
Execution +0.53 ±0.56 better than 80% of WTA · raw +0.39
Tactical adaptability −0.31 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 28 matches
Adaptation speed −0.15 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.72 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 31% 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 11,017 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Yulia Putintseva 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 · 806 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 31% 49.4%±5.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 45.4%±5.3 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 34.3%±7.4 40.4%
BH down the line 10% 47.9%±8.2 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 9% 32.1%±8.1 34.4%
BH drop shot down the line 5% 50.6%±10.9 49.1%
BH slice down the line 2% 23.4%±11.0 31.7%
BH lob through the middle 1% 21.4%±12.3 27.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 597 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 22% 50.3%±6.7 52.2%
FH crosscourt 20% 53.0%±7.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 16% 37.7%±7.4 45.8%
BH through the middle 15% 48.4%±7.9 46.2%
BH crosscourt 11% 52.6%±9.0 50.9%
BH down the line 6% 57.1%±10.9 50.0%
BH slice through the middle 5% 47.8%±11.9 44.8%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 58.5%±13.9 49.5%

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

position worth 43% to the average player · 588 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 35% 43.3%±5.4 44.9%
FH crosscourt 30% 44.3%±5.8 46.7%
FH through the middle 23% 38.5%±6.4 41.3%
FH slice through the middle 6% 25.6%±9.8 29.2%
FH slice down the line 2% 20.2%±11.3 24.3%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 27.1%±13.1 31.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 451 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 43.4%±6.2 47.9%
BH through the middle 24% 38.5%±7.1 42.7%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 44.8%±9.6 38.7%
BH down the line 11% 47.6%±10.0 46.7%
BH slice through the middle 9% 38.8%±10.3 33.4%
BH slice down the line 5% 31.2%±11.9 34.0%
BH drop shot down the line 4% 53.4%±13.5 48.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Yulia Putintseva's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 272 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 57% 68% ▲ 60% / 66%
Body 19% 14% 52% / 57%
T 24% 17% 66% / 68%

1,011 normal · 76 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 46% 60% / 66%
Body 17% 18% 52% / 56%
T 33% 36% 59% / 64%

805 normal · 196 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
Wide58% 54.1%±3.2 n=632 58%
Body18% 50.1%±5.4 n=199 3% ▼
T24% 55.7%±4.8 n=256 39% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.35).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 53.9%±3.6 n=495 50%
Body17% 52.5%±5.8 n=172 2% ▼
T33% 54.8%±4.3 n=334 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.84).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.54 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: −2.2±3.6 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. (792 repeats, 1,236 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 137 46% +1.7±6.3
1stAd courtT 204 32% −3.2±5.0
1stAd courtWide 245 30% −4.2±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 147 38% −4.3±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 223 34% +1.7±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 307 32% −2.2±4.2
2ndAd courtBody 181 52% −2.7±5.7
2ndAd courtT 49 45% −10.1±9.2
2ndAd courtWide 162 50% −3.5±5.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 177 53% −1.6±5.7
2ndDeuce courtT 133 48% −8.3±6.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 92 52% −2.0±7.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 62% · +4.9±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 56% · −0.9±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 56% · −0.9±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 56% · −1.1±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 55% · −1.8±9.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.2% · won 54% · +13.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 53% · +12.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 51% · +10.3±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 50% · +9.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 49% · +8.0±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 57% · +9.4±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 56% · +8.4±7.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 55% · +7.9±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.5% · won 56% · +8.2±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 51% · +3.9±8.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 57% · +10.8±9.6 vs own baseline · +9.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tamara Zidansek (5/8), Iga Swiatek (5/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 54% · +8.1±9.1 vs own baseline · +9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Victoria Azarenka (4/9), Kiki Bertens (5/9)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 52% · +5.7±8.1 vs own baseline · +5.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Iga Swiatek (3/7), Tamara Zidansek (3/6)
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +10.5±12.2 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +8.8±11.6 vs own baseline · +14.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Elena Rybakina (5/6)
  6. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 54% · +7.3±10.9 vs own baseline · +9.9 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 the middle · return +1+3.2147
BH to their backhand · rally+3.1517
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.6133
FH to the middle · rally+2.5395
BH to the middle · return +1+2.2145

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−7.1198
FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.0263
FH to their forehand · return−2.9241
T 2nd serve · deuce court−2.0131
BH to their forehand · serve +1−1.9146

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Sara Sorribes Tormo +3.17, Caroline Wozniacki +3.11, Angelique Kerber +2.49, Daria Kasatkina +2.49, Sara Errani +2.36

Favourable matchups

Sara Errani +2.26, Angelique Kerber +2.18, Marie Bouzkova +1.97, Elina Avanesyan +1.81, Magdalena Frech +1.58

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki, Emma Raducanu, Alexandra Eala, Daria Kasatkina

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot4.2%
Wide serves · deuce58%
1st serve in67%
FH down the line34%
Wide serves · ad49%
Avg rally length4.6
Through the middle33%
Backhand slice23%
Deep returns34%
Run-around forehands6%
Chipped returns10%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · ad33%
BH down the line17%
Points at net3%
Forehand share50%
Unforced errors / shot7.9%
Point-ending shots18.0%
T serves · deuce24%

Plays most like

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010 plan v
  2. Camila Osorio 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Anastasija Sevastova 2011–2025 plan v
  4. Marie Bouzkova 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Clara Burel 2018–2024 plan v
  6. Emma Raducanu 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Alize Cornet 2013–2024 plan v
  8. Antonia Ruzic 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Jennifer Capriati 1990–2002
  3. Martina Hingis 1996–2007

Charted matches