RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 11 charted matches · 1992–2000

Andrei Medvedev

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.9% ±3.2 raw 61.6% · tour 63.4% · 962 points
Return points won 37.5% ±3.3 raw 37.0% · tour 36.6% · 945 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 ±0.15 better than 16% of ATP · raw −0.18
Shot selection −0.13 ±0.26 better than 35% of ATP · raw −0.12
Execution −0.34 ±0.63 better than 52% of ATP · raw −0.25
Tactical adaptability −0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 10 matches
Adaptation speed −0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.04 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 18% 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 5,074 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Andrei Medvedev 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 · 274 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 37% 43.4%±7.4 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 42.1%±8.5 43.7%
BH down the line 17% 42.8%±10.0 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 38.9%±12.0 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 40.1%±13.6 35.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 240 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 47.5%±7.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 36% 40.5%±7.8 41.5%
FH down the line 20% 48.5%±10.0 44.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 232 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 19% 49.7%±10.3 49.1%
BH through the middle 18% 50.6%±10.4 46.8%
FH crosscourt 17% 60.9%±10.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 48.1%±10.7 47.0%
FH down the line 12% 54.8%±11.8 51.5%
FH down the line + approach 4% 73.7%±13.2 70.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 182 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 51.2%±8.6 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 48.1%±10.3 43.8%
BH down the line 15% 50.6%±11.9 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 12% 38.2%±12.3 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 41.7%±13.3 42.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +20 How much less varied Andrei Medvedev's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 69 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 57% 67% / 73%
Body 6% 0% 66% / 63%
T 39% 43% 79% / 75%

487 normal · 14 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 62% 73% ▲ 69% / 73%
Body 8% 4% 64% / 63%
T 30% 24% 68% / 72%

400 normal · 55 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
Wide55% 61.5%±4.6 n=275 48% ▼
Body6% 64.7%±10.1 n=31 0% ▼
T39% 63.7%±5.3 n=195 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.75).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide64% 62.1%±4.5 n=289 77% ▲
Body7% 61.1%±10.0 n=34 0% ▼
T29% 57.7%±6.4 n=132 23% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.56).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.34 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: +3.3±4.9 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. (423 repeats, 511 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 42 36% −0.7±9.3
1stAd courtT 92 28% +0.2±6.7
1stAd courtWide 122 33% +5.8±6.3
1stDeuce courtBody 41 28% −8.5±8.8
1stDeuce courtT 118 32% +7.0±6.3
1stDeuce courtWide 141 18% −9.5±4.8
2ndAd courtBody 85 52% +2.6±7.7
2ndAd courtT 37 41% −7.8±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 70 48% −0.9±8.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 84 53% +4.2±7.7
2ndDeuce courtT 61 52% +1.8±8.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 43 51% +3.2±9.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 64% · −4.0±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 62% · −6.0±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 59% · −8.2±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 3.9% · won 59% · −9.0±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.2% · won 57% · −10.2±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.7% · won 53% · +12.3±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 8.7% · won 46% · +5.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 42% · +1.1±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 40% · −0.2±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.5% · won 40% · −0.6±9.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 57% · +10.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.9% · won 55% · +8.5±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 49% · +2.8±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.5% · won 48% · +1.9±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 48% · +1.8±10.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 58% · +9.3±10.6 vs own baseline · +15.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (5/10), Stefan Edberg (6/9)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 54% · +5.9±10.6 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (4/9), Yevgeny Kafelnikov (4/9)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 54% · +5.2±12.5 vs own baseline · +11.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sergi Bruguera (4/8)
  4. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 53% · +4.3±13.0 vs own baseline · +10.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Goran Ivanisevic (6/8)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +4.3±13.0 vs own baseline · +11.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sergi Bruguera (5/8), Andre Agassi (4/6)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 50% · +1.8±13.0 vs own baseline · +0.2 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 their forehand · serve +1+2.9130
FH to the middle · rally+0.5216
FH to their forehand · rally+0.4282
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.2195
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.2289

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−1.0280
BH to the middle · rally−0.7144
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.7183
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−0.4229
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.3202

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Adrian Andreev, Alex Molcan, Rafael Nadal, Hugo Gaston, Daniel Evans

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad64%
Wide serves · deuce55%
Through the middle32%
Points at net16%
Avg rally length4.3
BH down the line21%
Unforced errors / shot9.8%
1st serve in61%
Point-ending shots22.9%
Serve & volley5%
Backhand slice18%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Forehand share50%
Run-around forehands12%
Chipped returns7%
T serves · deuce39%
FH down the line26%
T serves · ad29%
Deep returns8%

Plays most like

  1. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  2. Tennys Sandgren 2014–2021 plan v
  3. Paul Henri Mathieu 2002–2016 plan v
  4. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001 plan v
  5. Sergi Bruguera 1990–1997 plan v
  6. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006 plan v
  7. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  8. Egor Gerasimov 2016–2022 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026
  2. Tennys Sandgren 2014–2021
  3. Egor Gerasimov 2016–2022

Charted matches