RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 22 charted matches · 2021–2026

Arthur Rinderknech

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.8% ±2.6 raw 64.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,698 points
Return points won 33.4% ±2.7 raw 27.3% · tour 36.6% · 1,649 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 −0.22 ±0.10 better than 12% of ATP · raw −0.22
Shot selection +0.45 ±0.17 better than 90% of ATP · raw +0.44
Execution −0.47 ±0.72 better than 46% of ATP · raw −0.63
Tactical adaptability −0.16 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 22 matches
Adaptation speed −0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.12 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 14% 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 6,947 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Arthur Rinderknech 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 · 416 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 37% 41.6%±6.1 43.7%
BH crosscourt 26% 41.8%±7.2 47.6%
BH down the line 9% 41.9%±10.7 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 32.2%±10.3 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 43.0%±12.4 42.5%
FH inside-in 4% 41.9%±13.2 54.7%
FH through the middle 4% 40.1%±13.6 45.2%
FH inside-out 3% 43.5%±14.2 51.8%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 242 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 37% 34.5%±7.5 43.0%
BH crosscourt 26% 38.6%±8.7 46.9%
BH down the line 12% 36.4%±11.3 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 7% 33.8%±12.8 32.6%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 33.8%±13.0 40.9%
FH inside-in 4% 45.7%±15.0 53.6%
BH slice down the line 4% 35.5%±14.4 33.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 239 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 53.3%±8.6 52.7%
FH through the middle 23% 39.7%±9.4 47.0%
FH down the line 15% 46.1%±10.9 51.5%
BH through the middle 14% 40.3%±11.1 46.8%
BH crosscourt 6% 55.4%±14.0 49.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 218 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 33% 25.1%±7.4 41.5%
FH crosscourt 32% 38.6%±8.5 46.6%
FH down the line 19% 42.5%±10.4 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 9% 17.7%±10.1 24.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Arthur Rinderknech's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 154 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 47% 76% / 73%
Body 11% 9% 63% / 63%
T 43% 44% 74% / 75%

848 normal · 43 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 49% 79% / 73%
Body 10% 5% 61% / 63%
T 45% 47% 73% / 72%

693 normal · 111 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
Wide45% 64.6%±3.8 n=404 58% ▲
Body11% 61.5%±7.0 n=100 0% ▼
T43% 63.5%±3.9 n=387 42% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.76).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide45% 66.2%±3.9 n=365 46%
Body9% 56.7%±7.9 n=76 0% ▼
T45% 66.1%±3.9 n=363 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.06).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.55 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: −3.0±4.0 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. (596 repeats, 1,055 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 49 33% −4.0±8.7
1stAd courtT 211 20% −7.9±4.2
1stAd courtWide 249 19% −8.2±3.9
1stDeuce courtBody 71 29% −8.0±7.4
1stDeuce courtT 257 20% −5.4±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 254 24% −3.5±4.1
2ndAd courtBody 66 46% −3.7±8.4
2ndAd courtT 45 44% −5.6±9.4
2ndAd courtWide 148 40% −8.8±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 70 34% −15.3±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 159 47% −2.7±6.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 59 45% −2.7±8.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 61% · −9.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −12.8±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 59% · −11.2±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 57% · −13.3±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 53% · −16.9±10.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.1% · won 42% · +10.5±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 42% · +10.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 41% · +9.2±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 39% · +7.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 37% · +5.0±9.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 47% · +7.6±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 46% · +6.9±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 43% · +3.6±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 43% · +3.6±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 41% · +2.2±9.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.5% · won 49% · +6.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +12.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 45% · +3.7±12.2 vs own baseline · +6.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alexander Zverev (4/6)
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 44% · +2.2±12.6 vs own baseline · −7.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 44% · +2.2±12.6 vs own baseline · −4.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 43% · +1.8±11.9 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (3/6)
  6. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 43% · +1.2±11.5 vs own baseline · −1.6 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 to their backhand · return+3.6127
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.9155
BH to the middle · return+2.4322
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.7351
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.5374

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−4.5239
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.3237
T 1st serve · ad court−2.8295
T 2nd serve · deuce court−2.8157
BH to their backhand · rally−2.0302

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.96, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.47, Jack Draper +2.33, Roberto Bautista Agut +2.29, Casper Ruud +2.24

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.81, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.67, Pedro Martinez +0.61, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.55, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.48

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.

Through the middle34%
Unforced errors / shot13.2%
Point-ending shots29.7%
Drop shots / shot2.8%
1st serve in65%
T serves · ad45%
Deep returns34%
Forehand share56%
Wide serves · deuce45%
Run-around forehands22%
Points at net13%
Serve & volley12%
FH down the line31%
Backhand slice19%
T serves · deuce43%
Chipped returns12%
Wide serves · ad45%
BH down the line16%
Avg rally length3.3

Plays most like

  1. Gabriel Diallo 2024–2025 plan v
  2. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Zhizhen Zhang 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  8. Lukas Rosol 2012–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  2. Mario Ancic 2002–2008
  3. Mardy Fish 2003–2012

Charted matches