RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 22 charted matches · 2019–2025

Daniel Altmaier

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.5% ±2.8 raw 61.2% · tour 63.4% · 1,741 points
Return points won 35.8% ±2.8 raw 32.7% · tour 36.6% · 1,742 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 −0.17 ±0.12 better than 18% of ATP · raw −0.17
Shot selection −0.98 ±0.22 better than 3% of ATP · raw −0.99
Execution +0.23 ±0.64 better than 77% of ATP · raw +0.17
Tactical adaptability −0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 21 matches
Adaptation speed −0.12 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.13 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 8,795 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Daniel Altmaier 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 · 514 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 47.8%±5.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 44.7%±7.0 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 42.8%±8.4 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 42.4%±9.6 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 10% 31.9%±9.2 35.1%
FH inside-out 3% 58.2%±13.7 51.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 442 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 52.2%±6.8 51.5%
BH through the middle 18% 49.9%±8.2 46.8%
FH crosscourt 16% 48.9%±8.6 52.7%
FH through the middle 15% 43.6%±8.7 47.0%
BH crosscourt 8% 57.9%±11.0 49.1%
BH down the line 7% 50.3%±11.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 66.0%±13.8 70.5%
BH slice through the middle 2% 41.8%±14.6 44.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 394 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 33% 45.2%±6.7 41.5%
FH down the line 27% 43.7%±7.2 44.7%
FH crosscourt 24% 35.4%±7.4 46.6%
FH slice through the middle 11% 27.6%±9.1 24.5%
FH slice down the line 3% 27.7%±12.8 25.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 27% 49.8%±8.2 43.8%
BH crosscourt 26% 55.2%±8.2 48.0%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 37.8%±9.5 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 13% 29.4%±9.8 35.1%
BH down the line 12% 44.4%±10.8 46.5%
FH inside-out 3% 55.1%±14.9 52.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Daniel Altmaier'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 44% 45% 69% / 73%
Body 3% 0% 60% / 63%
T 53% 55% 75% / 75%

860 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 57% 55% 71% / 73%
Body 4% 5% 62% / 63%
T 39% 39% 67% / 72%

723 normal · 112 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
Wide44% 62.4%±3.8 n=401 58% ▲
Body3% 58.0%±10.9 n=26 0% ▼
T53% 60.6%±3.6 n=475 42% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.48).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide57% 61.1%±3.6 n=476 48% ▼
Body4% 60.2%±10.1 n=33 0% ▼
T39% 60.9%±4.3 n=326 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.92).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.21 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: +0.3±3.8 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. (763 repeats, 930 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 33 40% +2.8±10.1
1stAd courtT 250 25% −3.2±4.2
1stAd courtWide 232 22% −5.0±4.2
1stDeuce courtBody 36 32% −4.9±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 243 23% −2.2±4.2
1stDeuce courtWide 278 24% −3.1±4.0
2ndAd courtBody 93 49% +0.1±7.4
2ndAd courtT 65 44% −5.3±8.4
2ndAd courtWide 158 48% −0.2±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 121 47% −1.5±6.7
2ndDeuce courtT 146 51% +0.8±6.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 82 43% −4.8±7.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 66% · +0.9±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 65% · +0.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 64% · −1.7±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · −6.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.5% · won 55% · −10.5±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 52% · +16.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 51% · +14.3±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 41% · +4.9±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 41% · +4.6±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.7% · won 40% · +3.1±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 56% · +10.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.1% · won 55% · +10.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.9% · won 51% · +6.1±8.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 53% · +8.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.2% · won 49% · +4.0±8.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Daniel Altmaier 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 through the middle used 1.1% · won 58% · +12.0±9.5 vs own baseline · +19.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (11/15)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 55% · +9.0±8.3 vs own baseline · +9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (9/19), Karim Mohamed Maamoun (4/8)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 56% · +9.4±9.1 vs own baseline · +11.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (4/8), Jannik Sinner (10/17)
  4. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 57% · +10.6±10.6 vs own baseline · +12.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/7), Arthur Fils (6/7)
  5. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 57% · +11.2±12.7 vs own baseline · +30.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/6)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 56% · +9.6±12.3 vs own baseline · +20.2 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 the middle · rally+2.3312
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.7133
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.7170
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.4134
BH slice to the middle · return+1.3158

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−1.9157
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−1.5121
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.4181
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.3397
BH to the middle · return−1.3375

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.13, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.99, Casper Ruud +0.79, Nishesh Basavareddy +0.79, Jack Draper +0.75

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +0.81, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.71, Fabian Marozsan +0.65, Adrian Mannarino +0.58, Alexander Shevchenko +0.54

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.

FH down the line40%
Chipped returns37%
Through the middle32%
T serves · deuce53%
Wide serves · ad57%
Deep returns34%
1st serve in64%
Backhand slice26%
Unforced errors / shot10.7%
BH down the line22%
Avg rally length4.1
Wide serves · deuce44%
T serves · ad39%
Serve & volley7%
Points at net10%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Forehand share51%
Point-ending shots21.6%
Run-around forehands10%

Plays most like

  1. Mikhail Youzhny 2002–2018 plan v
  2. Denis Kudla 2014–2021 plan v
  3. Filip Krajinovic 2017–2023 plan v
  4. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Benjamin Bonzi 2021–2025 plan v
  6. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Jakub Mensik 2022–2026 plan v
  8. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011
  2. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  3. Tommy Haas 1996–2017

Charted matches