RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 16 charted matches · 2015–2026

Christopher Oconnell

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.1% ±3.0 raw 59.9% · tour 63.4% · 1,500 points
Return points won 37.9% ±3.1 raw 34.0% · tour 36.6% · 1,350 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 +0.35 ±0.06 better than 99% of ATP · raw +0.35
Shot selection −0.54 ±0.24 better than 10% of ATP · raw −0.54
Execution −0.86 ±0.46 better than 30% of ATP · raw −0.89
Tactical adaptability −0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 16 matches
Adaptation speed −0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.34 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 80% 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 7,502 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Christopher Oconnell 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 · 624 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 26% 38.1%±6.0 42.5%
BH crosscourt 21% 37.3%±6.5 47.6%
BH slice through the middle 11% 26.5%±7.8 35.1%
BH through the middle 10% 42.2%±9.1 43.7%
FH inside-out 9% 46.5%±9.4 51.8%
FH inside-in 8% 54.3%±9.9 54.7%
BH down the line 7% 47.4%±10.1 46.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 29.8%±10.1 37.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 364 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 30% 42.2%±7.2 42.1%
BH crosscourt 23% 36.8%±7.7 48.0%
BH slice through the middle 9% 40.8%±11.0 35.1%
BH down the line 9% 40.9%±11.2 46.5%
BH through the middle 7% 44.2%±11.9 43.8%
FH inside-in 6% 53.2%±12.5 54.3%
BH slice down the line 6% 28.9%±11.5 35.8%
FH inside-out 4% 50.1%±13.9 52.6%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 37.7%±6.5 46.6%
FH down the line 24% 38.4%±8.4 44.7%
FH through the middle 22% 37.6%±8.6 41.5%
FH down the line + approach 4% 65.2%±13.9 69.3%
FH slice through the middle 4% 25.5%±12.9 24.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 278 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 27% 42.9%±8.3 40.9%
BH crosscourt 27% 43.6%±8.4 46.9%
BH slice through the middle 14% 38.8%±10.5 32.6%
BH through the middle 11% 35.2%±11.1 43.0%
BH down the line 5% 48.1%±13.9 44.2%
FH inside-in 5% 44.9%±13.8 53.6%
BH slice down the line 4% 28.0%±13.3 33.3%
FH inside-out 4% 44.4%±14.9 51.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Christopher Oconnell's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 151 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 37% 67% / 73%
Body 4% 3% 63% / 63%
T 57% 60% 73% / 75%

743 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 51% 74% / 73%
Body 4% 4% 52% / 63%
T 48% 45% 69% / 72%

606 normal · 116 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
Wide39% 59.6%±4.4 n=306 42% ▲
Body4% 58.0%±10.6 n=29 0% ▼
T57% 60.4%±3.7 n=443 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.87).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 60.9%±4.1 n=351 62% ▲
Body4% 53.3%±10.8 n=28 0% ▼
T48% 60.1%±4.2 n=343 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.60).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.16 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: −2.4±5.4 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. (617 repeats, 851 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 46 41% +3.9±9.3
1stAd courtT 145 26% −2.1±5.5
1stAd courtWide 212 28% +0.5±4.7
1stDeuce courtBody 56 38% +1.7±8.6
1stDeuce courtT 198 20% −5.5±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 183 22% −5.0±4.7
2ndAd courtBody 75 46% −2.9±8.0
2ndAd courtT 50 61% +11.7±9.0
2ndAd courtWide 115 49% +1.0±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 113 45% −4.5±6.8
2ndDeuce courtT 104 48% −1.3±7.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 52 43% −4.9±9.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 67% · +1.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.9% · won 65% · −1.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 62% · −3.5±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-in used 4.0% · won 61% · −4.7±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 60% · −6.1±9.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 52% · +12.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 6.0% · won 46% · +7.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, short used 3.6% · won 48% · +8.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, deep used 2.7% · won 45% · +5.4±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 42% · +3.3±10.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 3.0% · won 47% · +6.4±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 45% · +4.5±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 4.1% · won 43% · +2.9±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 45% · +4.4±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 43% · +3.2±9.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH inside-in used 0.5% · won 53% · +9.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +9.8±12.8 vs own baseline · +13.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH slice crosscourt → FH inside-out → BH slice crosscourt used 0.5% · won 50% · +6.2±12.4 vs own baseline · +16.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (2/7)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 0.7% · won 49% · +5.2±11.5 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Diego Schwartzman (4/7), Daniil Medvedev (4/6)
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 50% · +6.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +7.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.4% · won 50% · +6.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.4 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 slice to the middle · rally+2.0150
FH to the middle · rally+1.3218
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.2199
BH slice to their backhand · rally+0.6353
FH to their forehand · return +1+0.5144

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−4.5129
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.6126
BH to the middle · return−1.4281
FH to their backhand · rally−1.2470
FH to the middle · rally−0.8229

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.70, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.36, Jack Draper +1.25, Casper Ruud +1.11, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.08

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +0.73, Fabian Marozsan +0.58, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.46, Brandon Nakashima +0.46, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.40

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Chipped returns50%
Backhand slice48%
T serves · deuce57%
T serves · ad48%
Run-around forehands31%
Deep returns36%
Forehand share55%
Unforced errors / shot10.7%
Avg rally length4.1
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Serve & volley9%
Points at net12%
Point-ending shots23.1%
Wide serves · ad49%
BH down the line19%
1st serve in60%
Wide serves · deuce39%
FH down the line26%
Through the middle20%

Plays most like

  1. Grigor Dimitrov 2009–2026 plan v
  2. Tommy Haas 1996–2017 plan v
  3. Stan Wawrinka 2006–2026 plan v
  4. Tim Van Rijthoven 2021–2023 plan v
  5. Feliciano Lopez 2003–2023 plan v
  6. Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2007–2022 plan v
  7. Dominic Thiem 2011–2024 plan v
  8. Roger Federer 1998–2021 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010
  2. Marc Rosset 1991–2000
  3. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005

Charted matches