RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 17 charted matches · 2023–2026

Alex Michelsen

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.3% ±3.1 raw 64.0% · tour 63.4% · 1,399 points
Return points won 40.7% ±3.3 raw 38.0% · tour 36.6% · 1,309 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 −0.19 ±0.11 better than 15% of ATP · raw −0.18
Shot selection +0.32 ±0.16 better than 82% of ATP · raw +0.33
Execution +0.61 ±0.49 better than 86% of ATP · raw +0.69
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 16 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.70 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 40% 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 6,567 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alex Michelsen 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 · 338 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 46.4%±6.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 39.7%±8.1 43.7%
BH down the line 20% 51.5%±8.9 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 43.4%±13.2 42.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 310 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 52.5%±8.6 51.5%
FH crosscourt 23% 58.8%±8.5 52.7%
FH through the middle 16% 43.4%±9.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 13% 53.9%±10.6 46.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 48.9%±10.7 49.1%
BH down the line 10% 59.3%±11.4 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 290 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 34% 54.6%±7.5 44.7%
FH crosscourt 26% 50.3%±8.4 46.6%
FH through the middle 24% 53.7%±8.6 41.5%
FH slice down the line 7% 22.8%±10.9 25.6%
FH slice through the middle 6% 26.1%±11.7 24.5%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 54% to the average player · 175 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 53.6%±9.5 56.0%
FH down the line 21% 45.9%±11.0 53.4%
BH crosscourt 13% 52.1%±12.7 49.5%
FH through the middle 11% 43.7%±12.9 47.3%
BH through the middle 9% 55.6%±13.8 47.3%
BH down the line 9% 57.5%±13.7 50.6%
FH down the line + approach 7% 74.1%±12.7 73.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Alex Michelsen's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 98 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 42% 75% / 73%
Body 15% 8% 67% / 63%
T 37% 50% ▲ 77% / 75%

706 normal · 24 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 54% 68% / 73%
Body 17% 11% 66% / 63%
T 32% 35% 64% / 72%

594 normal · 74 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
Wide48% 68.3%±3.9 n=350 61% ▲
Body15% 71.8%±6.3 n=109 2% ▼
T37% 66.9%±4.5 n=271 37%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 60.4%±4.1 n=347 52%
Body16% 54.9%±7.0 n=107 3% ▼
T32% 59.6%±5.2 n=214 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.42).
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: +1.6±5.0 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. (397 repeats, 967 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 27 37% ±0.0±10.5
1stAd courtT 162 25% −3.3±5.1
1stAd courtWide 178 23% −4.1±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 45 41% +4.6±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 167 29% +3.6±5.3
1stDeuce courtWide 211 30% +2.3±4.8
2ndAd courtBody 74 47% −2.4±8.1
2ndAd courtT 76 55% +5.2±8.0
2ndAd courtWide 106 50% +1.3±7.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 97 49% −0.4±7.3
2ndDeuce courtT 60 52% +2.4±8.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 104 61% +12.7±6.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 67% · −1.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 65% · −2.2±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 3.1% · won 64% · −3.1±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 63% · −5.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 60% · −7.4±10.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 60% · +10.8±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 56% · +6.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.4% · won 55% · +6.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.3% · won 53% · +4.0±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 5.0% · won 50% · +1.3±10.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH down the line used 3.2% · won 60% · +11.5±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 55% · +6.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 52% · +4.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 4.2% · won 51% · +3.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 52% · +3.2±10.2 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 Michelsen wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 57% · +5.9±12.9 vs own baseline · +24.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +4.3±12.5 vs own baseline · +13.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 54% · +3.7±11.7 vs own baseline · +11.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.9% · won 53% · +2.3±11.2 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex De Minaur (5/6)
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 53% · +2.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +4.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 53% · +2.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +8.1 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

BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.6186
BH to their forehand · rally+2.6196
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.1139
FH to the middle · return+1.6208
BH to their backhand · rally+1.4338

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−2.4151
FH to the middle · return−2.3258
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.9121
BH to their backhand · return−1.8181
FH to their backhand · rally−1.3252

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.47, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.21, Casper Ruud +2.01, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.99, Pedro Martinez +1.94

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +2.22, Fabian Marozsan +2.17, Pedro Martinez +2.16, Alexander Shevchenko +2.07, Roberto Bautista Agut +2.02

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Brandon Nakashima, Rinky Hijikata, Thiago Seyboth Wild, Jannik Sinner

Tactical fingerprint

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

FH down the line41%
1st serve in67%
BH down the line27%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Deep returns31%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
Wide serves · ad52%
Points at net13%
Through the middle25%
Point-ending shots23.6%
Forehand share53%
Avg rally length3.9
Serve & volley3%
Chipped returns11%
Unforced errors / shot8.3%
Backhand slice10%
Run-around forehands11%
T serves · ad32%
T serves · deuce37%

Plays most like

  1. Mikhail Kukushkin 2014–2022 plan v
  2. Jarkko Nieminen 2003–2014 plan v
  3. Valentin Vacherot 2024–2026 plan v
  4. Pablo Andujar 2013–2023 plan v
  5. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  6. Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
  7. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
  8. Hubert Hurkacz 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jarkko Nieminen 2003–2014
  2. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005
  3. Robin Soderling 2004–2011

Charted matches