RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2020–2025

Daniel Elahi Galan

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.7% ±2.9 raw 58.6% · tour 63.4% · 1,392 points
Return points won 36.2% ±3.0 raw 34.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,229 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 −0.09 ±0.10 better than 32% of ATP · raw −0.09
Shot selection +0.44 ±0.13 better than 89% of ATP · raw +0.46
Execution −0.67 ±0.46 better than 38% of ATP · raw −0.44
Tactical adaptability −0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.56 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 54% 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 6,884 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Daniel Elahi Galan 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 · 513 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 41.9%±5.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 39.6%±6.3 43.7%
FH inside-out 11% 39.2%±9.3 51.8%
FH inside-in 7% 61.0%±10.9 54.7%
BH down the line 6% 48.6%±11.6 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 4% 39.6%±12.3 35.1%
FH through the middle 4% 41.6%±12.7 45.2%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 40.9%±14.1 42.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 326 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 66.0%±7.1 52.7%
FH down the line 23% 52.4%±8.4 51.5%
FH through the middle 19% 44.9%±9.1 47.0%
BH through the middle 13% 46.6%±10.3 46.8%
BH crosscourt 8% 49.6%±12.1 49.1%
BH down the line 4% 50.5%±14.3 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 322 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 41.2%±6.4 46.6%
FH through the middle 28% 32.7%±7.3 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 47.1%±8.8 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 3% 19.7%±11.9 24.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 307 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 46.7%±7.1 48.0%
BH through the middle 25% 28.6%±7.5 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 42.1%±11.2 46.5%
FH inside-in 9% 60.1%±11.6 54.3%
FH inside-out 6% 55.5%±13.4 52.6%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 38.4%±13.5 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 30.4%±13.2 35.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Daniel Elahi Galan's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 145 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 17% ▼ 68% / 73%
Body 11% 7% 56% / 63%
T 49% 76% ▲ 71% / 75%

695 normal · 29 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 55% 70% / 73%
Body 11% 9% 58% / 63%
T 35% 36% 64% / 72%

551 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% 60.2%±4.6 n=280 50% ▲
Body11% 53.0%±7.9 n=79 0% ▼
T50% 60.2%±4.1 n=365 50%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.24).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 58.7%±4.1 n=361 67% ▲
Body11% 56.7%±8.1 n=71 0% ▼
T35% 57.1%±5.0 n=235 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.86).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.38 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: +0.8±3.4 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. (561 repeats, 802 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 37 39% +2.0±9.8
1stAd courtT 128 28% +0.1±5.9
1stAd courtWide 178 30% +2.7±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 54 31% −5.7±8.3
1stDeuce courtT 192 25% +0.4±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 169 25% −2.5±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 79 46% −3.7±7.8
2ndAd courtT 45 44% −5.6±9.4
2ndAd courtWide 115 47% −1.8±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 82 53% +4.3±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 116 42% −8.0±6.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 32 51% +2.6±10.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-in used 2.6% · won 65% · +3.6±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 62% · +0.3±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 60% · −1.8±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.0% · won 59% · −2.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · −3.3±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.1% · won 49% · +10.9±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 6.5% · won 47% · +8.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.5% · won 44% · +5.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.9% · won 44% · +5.1±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.0% · won 43% · +4.1±9.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 61% · +16.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 53% · +8.0±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 2.5% · won 56% · +10.6±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 53% · +7.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 52% · +6.6±8.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 62% · +17.1±11.1 vs own baseline · +23.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/7)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 59% · +14.5±10.3 vs own baseline · +16.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jordan Thompson (5/9), Jason Kubler (9/12)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.5% · won 56% · +11.2±12.2 vs own baseline · +14.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +10.0±12.1 vs own baseline · +12.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jordan Thompson (10/12)
  5. BH crosscourt → FH inside-out → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +10.2±12.3 vs own baseline · +21.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 51% · +6.1±9.6 vs own baseline · +7.4 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

FH to the middle · serve +1+1.0124
FH to their forehand · rally+0.9540
FH to the middle · return+0.6188
BH to the middle · rally+0.5312
BH to their backhand · return+0.4225

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.1499
FH to their forehand · rally−2.2464
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.7178
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.7133
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.4218

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 +2.04, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.90, Jack Draper +1.81, Casper Ruud +1.79

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.27, Fabian Marozsan +1.16, Pedro Martinez +1.10, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.05, Jenson Brooksby +0.90

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.

Run-around forehands33%
Forehand share60%
Through the middle28%
T serves · deuce50%
Deep returns33%
Avg rally length4.4
Wide serves · ad54%
1st serve in63%
Points at net10%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · ad35%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%
Backhand slice11%
Wide serves · deuce39%
Point-ending shots19.6%
Chipped returns6%
BH down the line13%
FH down the line25%

Plays most like

  1. Pablo Cuevas 2015–2021 plan v
  2. Juncheng Shang 2024–2026 plan v
  3. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  4. Thiago Monteiro 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Cristian Garin 2018–2025 plan v
  6. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v
  7. Radu Albot 2016–2024 plan v
  8. Casper Ruud 2017–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Nicolas Massu 2000–2009
  2. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009
  3. James Blake 2002–2011

Charted matches