Amanda Anisimova

-5.5 pts vs baseline

Net approach rate

6.4%

-1.4 pts vs baseline

Similar Profiles

Where to go next.

These are the closest style matches in the same tour and season view.

wta

Clara Tauson

23 matches · Right-handed

73% match

Metric match

wta

Emma Raducanu

20 matches · Right-handed

73% match

First-strike aggressor

wta

Iga Swiatek

47 matches · Right-handed

73% match

Score-point closer

wta

Elena Rybakina

31 matches · Right-handed

71% match

First-strike aggressor

Detailed Metrics

Follow the profile across eight public traits.

The top line stays simple. Expand any card when you want the raw sample, uncertainty, baseline, rank, and nearby names in the leaderboard.

Profile Shape

A quick read of the full profile.

Amanda Anisimova

Read the page like a scout

Start with one question, not all eight.

Start here

Short service points

65.9% · 100th percentile

Start here

Forehand attack rate

39.9% · 97th percentile

Start here

Break-point resistance

60.8% · 86th percentile

Deep return rate

34.8%

MiddleHigh confidence

71st percentile#10 of 32

Higher values usually mean the return is buying time, pinning the server back, and moving the point off easy first-ball offense.

90% interval 33.0-36.6 · nEff 1896.7

#8 Liudmila SamsonovaJust above · 9 matches35.4%#9 Belinda BencicJust above · 11 matches35.1%#11 Jessica PegulaJust below · 13 matches34.8%#12 Aryna SabalenkaJust below · 18 matches34.3%

Show details

Adjusted value: 34.8%

Raw value: 35.3%

Baseline: 33.4%

Vs baseline: +1.3 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 33.0-36.6

Effective sample size: 1896.7

Sample: 1915 returnable returns · weighted 2040

Threshold: 300+ returnable returns

Nearby names

Forehand attack rate

39.9%

EliteHigh confidence

97th percentile#2 of 32

Higher values point to a forehand that steps on the point instead of simply recycling crosscourt.

90% interval 38.3-41.5 · nEff 2483.4

#1 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches40.3%#3 Qinwen ZhengJust below · 10 matches38.5%#4 Daria KasatkinaJust below · 10 matches36.8%

Show details

Adjusted value: 39.9%

Raw value: 42.1%

Baseline: 31.6%

Vs baseline: +8.2 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 38.3-41.5

Effective sample size: 2483.4

Sample: 2507 charted forehand directions · weighted 2686

Threshold: 500+ charted forehand directions

Nearby names

Serve variety

98 / 100

Below medianHigh confidence

26th percentile#26 of 35

Higher values usually mean the first-ball read is harder because serve patterns are not concentrated in one lane.

90% interval 98.1-98.8 · nEff 2547.7

#24 Madison KeysJust above · 9 matches99 / 100 #25 Anna KalinskayaJust above · 13 matches99 / 100 #27 Emma RaducanuJust below · 20 matches98 / 100 #28 Clara TausonJust below · 23 matches98 / 100

Show details

Adjusted value: 98 / 100

Raw value: 98 / 100

Baseline: 99 / 100

Vs baseline: -1.0 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 98.1-98.8

Effective sample size: 2547.7

Sample: 2571 charted serves · weighted 2753

Threshold: 300+ charted serves

Nearby names

Net approach rate

6.4%

Outlier lowHigh confidence

15th percentile#30 of 35

Higher values point to a profile that uses the front court as a recurring pressure tool rather than an emergency option.

90% interval 5.9-7.0 · nEff 5158.2

#28 Elise MertensJust above · 7 matches6.7%#29 Iga SwiatekJust above · 47 matches6.7%#31 Emma RaducanuJust below · 20 matches6.0%#32 Daria KasatkinaJust below · 10 matches5.9%

Show details

Adjusted value: 6.4%

Raw value: 6.2%

Baseline: 7.8%

Vs baseline: -1.4 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 5.9-7.0

Effective sample size: 5158.2

Sample: 321 net points across 5206 total points · weighted 5561

Threshold: 30+ net points and 600+ total points

Nearby names

Net conversion

63.1%

Outlier lowMedium confidence

15th percentile#35 of 41

Higher values point to cleaner front-court execution once the approach or transition decision is made.

90% interval 58.7-67.6 · nEff 318.3

#29 Elena RybakinaJust above · 31 matches65.9%#30 Clara TausonJust above · 23 matches65.4%#36 Elina SvitolinaJust below · 17 matches63.1%

Show details

Adjusted value: 63.1%

Raw value: 62.6%

Baseline: 68.6%

Vs baseline: -5.5 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 58.7-67.6

Effective sample size: 318.3

Sample: 321 net points · weighted 346

Threshold: 30+ net points

Nearby names

Break-point resistance

60.8%

StrongMedium confidence

86th percentile#7 of 44

Higher values point to a service profile that stays stable when the score tightens.

90% interval 55.8-65.8 · nEff 258.6

#3 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches62.3%#8 Iga SwiatekJust below · 47 matches60.5%

Show details

Adjusted value: 60.8%

Raw value: 61.3%

Baseline: 57.0%

Vs baseline: +3.8 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 55.8-65.8

Effective sample size: 258.6

Sample: 261 break points faced on serve · weighted 284

Threshold: 20+ break points faced on serve

Nearby names

Break-point attack

45.9%

Below medianMedium confidence

46th percentile#23 of 42

Higher values point to a return profile that leans forward at the moment the service game can swing.

90% interval 41.3-50.5 · nEff 321.0

#4 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches52.6%#8 Iga SwiatekJust above · 47 matches51.4%#29 Elena RybakinaJust below · 31 matches44.9%

Show details

Adjusted value: 45.9%

Raw value: 45.7%

Baseline: 46.8%

Vs baseline: -0.9 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 41.3-50.5

Effective sample size: 321.0

Sample: 324 break points on return · weighted 341

Threshold: 20+ break points on return

Nearby names

Short service points

65.9%

EliteHigh confidence

100th percentile#1 of 32

Higher values point to service games that stay short and front-footed. Lower values usually mean a profile that lives in longer points.

90% interval 64.5-67.4 · nEff 3024.6

#2 Belinda BencicJust below · 11 matches63.7%#3 Elena RybakinaJust below · 31 matches63.5%

Show details

Adjusted value: 65.9%

Raw value: 67.1%

Baseline: 58.6%

Vs baseline: +7.3 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 64.5-67.4

Effective sample size: 3024.6

Sample: 3052 charted service points · weighted 3262

Threshold: 300+ charted service points

Nearby names

By Surface

Surface splits with enough charted volume.

Surface cards only show up when the selected season window has at least 10 charted matches on that surface.

Surface

Hard

25 matches

25 charted hard matches. The surface profile leans most clearly into first-strike share (+7.5 pts vs adjusted baseline), while net conversion is softer (-4.2 pts vs adjusted baseline).

Short service points: 66.1%Forehand attack rate: 38.6%Break-point resistance: 60.7%

25 charted matches on hard.

Methodology

Need the formulas under the profile?

The methodology page explains thresholds, weighting, uncertainty, reliability grades, and why some players or surfaces disappear when the sample gets too thin.

Open Methodology

Private workflow

Want this turned onto a real match?

Tour Radar is the public proof layer. Private work starts when your team brings a live coaching question and sends team footage, tracking exports, or official reports or exports it can share.

Email Surge Open Contact Paths

Loading player profile...

Back to Tour Radar

wta

Player Profile

Amanda Anisimova

Public WTA coverage-qualified profile built from charted matches. Start with the summary, then follow one reliable trait into the wider tour.

Reliability AStyle signal 57 / 100First-strike aggressor Score-point closer

Scouting Summary

What stands out

Short service points

65.9%

100th

+7.3 pts vs baseline

Forehand attack rate

39.9%

97th

+8.2 pts vs baseline

Break-point resistance

60.8%

86th

+3.8 pts vs baseline

What opponents can target

Net conversion

63.1%

-5.5 pts vs baseline

Net approach rate

6.4%

-1.4 pts vs baseline

Similar Profiles

Where to go next.

These are the closest style matches in the same tour and season view.

wta

Clara Tauson

23 matches · Right-handed

73% match

Metric match

wta

Emma Raducanu

20 matches · Right-handed

73% match

First-strike aggressor

wta

Iga Swiatek

47 matches · Right-handed

73% match

Score-point closer

wta

Elena Rybakina

31 matches · Right-handed

71% match

First-strike aggressor

Detailed Metrics

Follow the profile across eight public traits.

The top line stays simple. Expand any card when you want the raw sample, uncertainty, baseline, rank, and nearby names in the leaderboard.

Profile Shape

A quick read of the full profile.

Amanda Anisimova

Read the page like a scout

Start with one question, not all eight.

Start here

Short service points

65.9% · 100th percentile

Start here

Forehand attack rate

39.9% · 97th percentile

Start here

Break-point resistance

60.8% · 86th percentile

Deep return rate

34.8%

MiddleHigh confidence

71st percentile#10 of 32

Higher values usually mean the return is buying time, pinning the server back, and moving the point off easy first-ball offense.

90% interval 33.0-36.6 · nEff 1896.7

#8 Liudmila SamsonovaJust above · 9 matches35.4%#9 Belinda BencicJust above · 11 matches35.1%#11 Jessica PegulaJust below · 13 matches34.8%#12 Aryna SabalenkaJust below · 18 matches34.3%

Show details

Adjusted value: 34.8%

Raw value: 35.3%

Baseline: 33.4%

Vs baseline: +1.3 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 33.0-36.6

Effective sample size: 1896.7

Sample: 1915 returnable returns · weighted 2040

Threshold: 300+ returnable returns

Nearby names

Forehand attack rate

39.9%

EliteHigh confidence

97th percentile#2 of 32

Higher values point to a forehand that steps on the point instead of simply recycling crosscourt.

90% interval 38.3-41.5 · nEff 2483.4

#1 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches40.3%#3 Qinwen ZhengJust below · 10 matches38.5%#4 Daria KasatkinaJust below · 10 matches36.8%

Show details

Adjusted value: 39.9%

Raw value: 42.1%

Baseline: 31.6%

Vs baseline: +8.2 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 38.3-41.5

Effective sample size: 2483.4

Sample: 2507 charted forehand directions · weighted 2686

Threshold: 500+ charted forehand directions

Nearby names

Serve variety

98 / 100

Below medianHigh confidence

26th percentile#26 of 35

Higher values usually mean the first-ball read is harder because serve patterns are not concentrated in one lane.

90% interval 98.1-98.8 · nEff 2547.7

#24 Madison KeysJust above · 9 matches99 / 100 #25 Anna KalinskayaJust above · 13 matches99 / 100 #27 Emma RaducanuJust below · 20 matches98 / 100 #28 Clara TausonJust below · 23 matches98 / 100

Show details

Adjusted value: 98 / 100

Raw value: 98 / 100

Baseline: 99 / 100

Vs baseline: -1.0 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 98.1-98.8

Effective sample size: 2547.7

Sample: 2571 charted serves · weighted 2753

Threshold: 300+ charted serves

Nearby names

Net approach rate

6.4%

Outlier lowHigh confidence

15th percentile#30 of 35

Higher values point to a profile that uses the front court as a recurring pressure tool rather than an emergency option.

90% interval 5.9-7.0 · nEff 5158.2

#28 Elise MertensJust above · 7 matches6.7%#29 Iga SwiatekJust above · 47 matches6.7%#31 Emma RaducanuJust below · 20 matches6.0%#32 Daria KasatkinaJust below · 10 matches5.9%

Show details

Adjusted value: 6.4%

Raw value: 6.2%

Baseline: 7.8%

Vs baseline: -1.4 pts

Confidence: High confidence

90% interval: 5.9-7.0

Effective sample size: 5158.2

Sample: 321 net points across 5206 total points · weighted 5561

Threshold: 30+ net points and 600+ total points

Nearby names

Net conversion

63.1%

Outlier lowMedium confidence

15th percentile#35 of 41

Higher values point to cleaner front-court execution once the approach or transition decision is made.

90% interval 58.7-67.6 · nEff 318.3

#29 Elena RybakinaJust above · 31 matches65.9%#30 Clara TausonJust above · 23 matches65.4%#36 Elina SvitolinaJust below · 17 matches63.1%

Show details

Adjusted value: 63.1%

Raw value: 62.6%

Baseline: 68.6%

Vs baseline: -5.5 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 58.7-67.6

Effective sample size: 318.3

Sample: 321 net points · weighted 346

Threshold: 30+ net points

Nearby names

Break-point resistance

60.8%

StrongMedium confidence

86th percentile#7 of 44

Higher values point to a service profile that stays stable when the score tightens.

90% interval 55.8-65.8 · nEff 258.6

#3 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches62.3%#8 Iga SwiatekJust below · 47 matches60.5%

Show details

Adjusted value: 60.8%

Raw value: 61.3%

Baseline: 57.0%

Vs baseline: +3.8 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 55.8-65.8

Effective sample size: 258.6

Sample: 261 break points faced on serve · weighted 284

Threshold: 20+ break points faced on serve

Nearby names

Break-point attack

45.9%

Below medianMedium confidence

46th percentile#23 of 42

Higher values point to a return profile that leans forward at the moment the service game can swing.

90% interval 41.3-50.5 · nEff 321.0

#4 Mirra AndreevaJust above · 49 matches52.6%#8 Iga SwiatekJust above · 47 matches51.4%#29 Elena RybakinaJust below · 31 matches44.9%

Show details

Adjusted value: 45.9%

Raw value: 45.7%

Baseline: 46.8%

Vs baseline: -0.9 pts

Confidence: Medium confidence

90% interval: 41.3-50.5

Effective sample size: 321.0

Sample: 324 break points on return · weighted 341

Threshold: 20+ break points on return

Nearby names

Short service points

65.9%

EliteHigh confidence

100th percentile#1 of 32

Higher values point to service games that stay short and front-footed. Lower values usually mean a profile that lives in longer points.

90% interval 64.5-67.4 · nEff 3024.6