RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 140 charted matches · 2016–2026

Alex De Minaur

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.7% ±2.3 raw 62.8% · tour 63.4% · 10,813 points
Return points won 41.8% ±2.4 raw 38.6% · tour 36.6% · 11,132 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 −0.25 ±0.03 better than 9% of ATP · raw −0.25
Shot selection +0.19 ±0.07 better than 72% of ATP · raw +0.19
Execution +0.34 ±0.21 better than 80% of ATP · raw +0.35
Tactical adaptability +0.18 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 137 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.39 ±0.36 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 11,381 shots · better than 25% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.56 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 54% of ATP

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 65,207 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alex De Minaur 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 46% to the average player · 4,978 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 49.9%±2.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 33% 48.7%±2.0 43.7%
BH down the line 13% 53.0%±3.2 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 47.3%±4.8 42.5%
FH inside-out 4% 44.6%±5.6 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 40.0%±5.6 35.1%
FH inside-in 2% 58.3%±8.1 54.7%
BH slice down the line 1% 48.3%±8.6 37.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 3,710 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 49.6%±2.1 48.0%
BH through the middle 29% 49.7%±2.5 43.8%
BH down the line 12% 48.9%±3.8 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 44.8%±4.5 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 42.4%±6.3 35.1%
FH inside-out 2% 56.4%±8.1 52.6%
BH slice down the line 2% 39.5%±8.5 35.8%
FH inside-in 1% 52.2%±10.4 54.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 3,417 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 53.4%±2.8 51.5%
BH through the middle 17% 53.0%±3.3 46.8%
FH through the middle 16% 49.3%±3.5 47.0%
FH crosscourt 14% 48.8%±3.7 52.7%
BH crosscourt 9% 54.4%±4.6 49.1%
BH down the line 7% 51.0%±5.0 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 4% 77.0%±5.6 70.5%
BH slice through the middle 2% 54.3%±8.1 44.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 3,082 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 47.8%±2.3 46.6%
FH through the middle 28% 45.2%±2.7 41.5%
FH down the line 17% 46.4%±3.5 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 5% 28.4%±5.7 24.5%
FH slice down the line 2% 31.7%±8.0 25.6%
FH down the line + approach 2% 69.0%±8.5 69.3%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 39.1%±9.8 30.9%
FH drop shot down the line 1% 41.9%±13.2 49.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Alex De Minaur's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 917 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 51% ▲ 72% / 73%
Body 17% 11% 64% / 63%
T 42% 38% 75% / 75%

5,427 normal · 224 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 43% 73% / 73%
Body 17% 16% 62% / 63%
T 39% 41% 68% / 72%

4,454 normal · 693 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. No measurable response (−0.05 ± 0.15 points per 100 serves for every 10 points of habitual usage), measured from ATP 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
Wide42% 65.1%±1.6 n=2,373 48% ▲
Body17% 62.2%±2.6 n=936 3% ▼
T41% 65.4%±1.6 n=2,342 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.16).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 61.8%±1.7 n=2,271 57% ▲
Body17% 59.7%±2.7 n=857 4% ▼
T39% 59.8%±1.8 n=2,019 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.28).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.45 points per 100 first serves What the optimal mix would win over the current one, both courts. More exploitable than 100% of ATP servers. Tested on matches they weren't fitted on, ATP mixes picked this way win 0.33 per 100 first serves on average.

Repeating the previous direction to the same court: −0.8±1.6 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. (3,853 repeats, 6,667 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 339 40% +3.4±4.2
1stAd courtT 1,379 31% +2.7±2.0
1stAd courtWide 1,488 28% +0.8±1.9
1stDeuce courtBody 423 42% +5.7±3.8
1stDeuce courtT 1,581 26% +0.5±1.8
1stDeuce courtWide 1,619 30% +3.1±1.9
2ndAd courtBody 784 52% +2.7±2.9
2ndAd courtT 367 52% +2.3±4.1
2ndAd courtWide 953 53% +4.2±2.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 881 50% +0.7±2.7
2ndDeuce courtT 861 55% +4.8±2.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 438 49% +1.4±3.8

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Alex De Minaur'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 61% · −3.8±5.0 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 60% · −5.2±5.1 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 58% · −7.3±4.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 56% · −9.5±4.9 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 58% · −7.7±3.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 56% · +15.2±4.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 55% · +13.9±4.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 51% · +10.2±4.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 49% · +7.6±4.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 48% · +6.5±4.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 55% · +5.5±4.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.2% · won 55% · +5.0±3.8 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 54% · +4.5±3.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 55% · +5.0±4.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 55% · +4.9±5.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 75% · +24.3±7.2 vs own baseline · +10.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (3/6), Sebastian Korda (4/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 69% · +18.0±8.3 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lorenzo Musetti (5/8), Daniil Medvedev (5/7)
  3. FH down the line + approach → BH down the line → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 72% · +21.9±9.3 vs own baseline · +16.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line + approach → BH slice crosscourt → BH volley down the line used 0.1% · won 71% · +20.5±9.6 vs own baseline · +18.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lorenzo Musetti (5/7)
  5. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 69% · +18.6±9.3 vs own baseline · +4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (5/6)
  6. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash down the line used 0.1% · won 71% · +20.4±10.2 vs own baseline · +4.6 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 volley to their forehand · rally+4.3251
BH volley to the middle · rally+3.8137
BH volley to their forehand · rally+3.5263
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.2821
FH to the middle · return+2.12,199

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.31,668
Smash to their backhand · rally−2.3159
BH slice to their backhand · serve +1−2.2179
BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.0525
Smash to their forehand · rally−1.8168

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.68, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.61, Casper Ruud +1.35, Jack Draper +1.30, Pedro Martinez +1.28

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +2.27, Pedro Martinez +2.15, Roberto Bautista Agut +2.08, Roberto Carballes Baena +2.06, Fabian Marozsan +2.06

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Luciano Darderi, Brandon Nakashima, Milos Raonic, Francisco Cerundolo, Rinky Hijikata

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle32%
Avg rally length4.9
FH down the line35%
Deep returns31%
T serves · ad39%
Points at net10%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Backhand slice17%
Serve & volley1%
Run-around forehands14%
BH down the line17%
T serves · deuce41%
Forehand share50%
Drop shots / shot0.7%
1st serve in59%
Chipped returns8%
Wide serves · ad44%
Unforced errors / shot7.5%
Point-ending shots17.5%

Plays most like

  1. Jenson Brooksby 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Janko Tipsarevic 2007–2019 plan v
  4. Jordan Thompson 2016–2025 plan v
  5. Viktor Troicki 2009–2021 plan v
  6. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025 plan v
  7. Taro Daniel 2014–2024 plan v
  8. Ilya Ivashka 2018–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guillermo Canas 2001–2007
  2. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  3. Michael Chang 1989–1998

Charted matches