Polina Kudermetova vs Jodie Burrage: Dubai Final Analysis (ITF W100)
Burrage claimed her biggest career title with a superior return performance and great control of "+1" unforced errors
Wild card Jodie Burrage (WTA #271) overcame top seed Polina Kudermetova (WTA #116) 6-3, 6-3 in the ITF W100 Dubai final to claim her biggest career title to date. A bright end to what Burrage described as a “brutal year”.
Back in February, the 25-year-old British looked poised for a stint inside the Top-100 and a regular spot in WTA Tour events. But wrist and ankle injuries forced her out for 6 months.
Finally healthy, Burrage has been making up for lost ground fast, winning 20 of 28 matches since her return and stringing a series of strong results on the ITF Tour.
Playing better each week, Burrage concluded the season with back-to-back semi-finals at W35 Villeneuve d’Ascq and W50 Funchal, followed by finals in the last two weeks. The first at W75 Trnava ended in a loss to top seed Tatjana Maria, but this week nobody could stop Burrage from clinching her 6th singles pro title.
The championship match in Dubai was a flat-hitting, first-strike tennis galore, with 86 of 101 points decided within the first 4 shots.
By the end, it crowned the player with:
superior return efficiency
greater control of “+1” unforced errors
The combination of these two key factors originated a 33-18 score and a huge 15-point advantage for Burrage in points lasting 1 or 2 shots (marked by red box, below). A massive difference that even exceeded the final winning margin of 13 points (57 to 44).
As we take a deeper dive into the match, let’s start by noting that both players finished with relately low 1st serve percentages, only a tad above 50%.
1st serves made
Kudermetova: 53% (25 of 47)
Burrage: 52% (28 of 54)
For aggressive returners such as these two, this enticed them to take frequent big swings on 2nd serve returns, pouncing on the chance to get that first strike in.
Even more so when 2nd serves were somewhat predictable. Kudermetova targeted the backhand in 18 of 19 2nd serves while Burrage did the same in 21 of 23 valid 2nd deliveries.
2nd serve distribution (to FH / to BH) *
Kudermetova: 1 / 18
Burrage: 2 / 21
* more data is available further down
In a broader definition of offensive production resulting from quality returns - one that includes winning returns as well as winning “return+1s” set up by preceding high calibre replies - both players ended with 10 points won, so it was a tie.
However, Burrage finished with 4 breaks against a single one from Kudermetova because she did a lot better at stringing together some great returns and/or hitting them at crucial moments.
Burrage excelled right off the bat, blasting 2 winning returns in the first 2 points of the final. An imposing start that netted an inaugural break.
📺 source: ITF Tour live streaming
Then the British had 2 more big returns during the 9th game to grab a second break and secure the first set.
After losing her serve in the opening game of the second set, Burrage benefitted from a trio of unforced errors from Kudermetova to reach a 0/40 lead and 3 chances to break back immediately.
No prizes for guessing how Burrage converted the break point.
As Kudermetova served at 2-3 0/30, yet another return winner from Burrage created 3 break points. She converted the second chance with a fast-paced return that didn’t give Kudermetova enough time to prepare.
It turned out to be the decisive break of the second set (and match).
As mentioned before, Kudermetova managed to equal Burrage’s total of 10 points won off quality returns. However, the Russian achieved it while being too much “hit-or-miss”.
So it was probably fitting that the final ended with Kudermetova missing back-to-back 2nd serve returns.
In total, Kudermetova made 16 return errors against 9 from Burrage.
A negative stat that gets a lot worse for the top seed when we consider that it was almost all created by 2nd serve return errors. Kudermetova finished with 10 missed 2nd serve returns, 6 more than Burrage’s 4.
Return Errors
Kudermetova = 16
6 1st serve return errors
10 2nd serve return errors
Burrage = 9
5 1st serve return errors
4 2nd serve return errors
Remarkably, Kudermetova didn’t find the court in 54% (7 of 13) of 2nd serve backhand returns she hit from the AD court (marked by the yellow box and arrow, below). Out of those 13 points, she only won 2 for a minuscule 15% win-rate.
Costly mistakes and struggles from Kudermetova that certainly tell a significant part of the story.
The rest of it comes from “+1” unforced errors as that was another area in which players greatly differed.
Burrage did a great job at keeping the ball in play if not able to hit a winning “+1” shot. By contrast, Kudermetova was a lot more unforced error-prone, as final numbers show. The Russian accumulated 12 unforced errors in combined “serve+1s” and “return+1s” while Burrage had 8 fewer, with 4.
“+1” Unforced Errors
Kudermetova = 12
“serve+1” UEs = 6
“return+1” UEs = 6
Burrage = 4
“serve+1” UEs = 2
“return+1” UEs = 2
Overall, the combination of Burrage’s superior return efficiency with Kudermetova’s “hot and cold” patches while returning or striking “+1” shots resulted in a gigantic 17-point difference in unforced errors (29 to 12). That was the difference-maker on the day.
Polina Kudermetova (WTA #116, seed 1) vs Jodie Burrage (WTA #271, wild card)
2024 Dubai Final - Match Data
Set by Set Stats
Rally Length
Strategy Stats
Winners and Errors (returns and rally shots)
Strokes Breakdown
Direction of winning shots and unforced errors (only groundstrokes)
Serve and Return
1st Serves
Return & rallying performance
Points won breakdown
This final section gives a last, broader look at the match by presenting how each player won points. Points are listed according to their frequency (highest to lowest) and are named in relation to the last touch on the ball. For simplicity, groundstrokes hit from the 5th shot onwards are grouped together.
Breakdown by side (FHs or BHs)
Breakdown by error type (UFEs or FEs)
To find out more about the stats published here, please visit the following post.
While we follow the same criteria used on all major tennis events, our stats are collected through our own video analysis and are not official WTA or ITF stats.
Thanks for reading!
— Tennis Inside Numbers