RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 32 charted matches · 2016–2024

Daniel Evans

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.2% ±2.6 raw 62.0% · tour 63.4% · 2,529 points
Return points won 40.5% ±2.8 raw 37.6% · tour 36.6% · 2,447 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 −0.03 ±0.17 better than 48% of ATP · raw −0.03
Shot selection −1.18 ±0.22 better than 1% of ATP · raw −1.18
Execution +0.37 ±0.40 better than 81% of ATP · raw +0.36
Tactical adaptability +0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 30 matches
Adaptation speed +0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.06 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 17% 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 13,137 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Daniel Evans 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 · 936 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 42% 51.4%±4.0 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 18% 52.6%±5.9 35.1%
FH inside-out 10% 57.2%±7.8 51.8%
BH crosscourt 7% 50.6%±9.1 47.6%
BH slice down the line 7% 40.0%±9.0 37.1%
BH through the middle 6% 37.1%±9.4 43.7%
BH down the line 4% 40.1%±10.6 46.4%
FH inside-in 4% 53.6%±11.2 54.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 674 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 45% 49.5%±4.6 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 18% 41.2%±6.8 35.1%
BH crosscourt 9% 61.7%±8.8 48.0%
BH slice down the line 7% 43.1%±9.7 35.8%
FH inside-out 7% 60.5%±9.8 52.6%
BH through the middle 4% 57.0%±11.9 43.8%
BH drop shot down the line 4% 55.8%±12.3 47.8%
BH down the line 3% 49.5%±13.2 46.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 515 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 21% 53.3%±7.2 51.5%
FH through the middle 21% 40.5%±7.2 47.0%
FH crosscourt 16% 56.0%±8.1 52.7%
BH slice through the middle 11% 47.3%±9.4 44.8%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 49.9%±9.8 47.0%
FH down the line + approach 6% 70.0%±10.4 70.5%
BH through the middle 5% 41.2%±11.8 46.8%
BH slice down the line 3% 39.7%±14.0 45.6%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 458 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 41.6%±5.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 28% 45.1%±6.8 41.5%
FH down the line 18% 39.2%±8.0 44.7%
FH down the line + approach 6% 64.3%±11.4 69.3%
FH slice through the middle 5% 21.7%±10.6 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 33.9%±14.2 30.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Daniel Evans's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 233 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 31% 31% 74% / 73%
Body 13% 6% 62% / 63%
T 57% 63% 73% / 75%

1,262 normal · 51 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 58% 73% / 73%
Body 10% 8% 57% / 63%
T 34% 34% 67% / 72%

1,029 normal · 182 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
Wide31% 64.5%±3.8 n=401 44% ▲
Body12% 61.1%±5.8 n=164 0% ▼
T57% 61.8%±2.9 n=748 56%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.54).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide56% 62.7%±3.0 n=682 69% ▲
Body9% 58.9%±6.7 n=114 0% ▼
T34% 60.0%±3.8 n=415 31% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.49).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.54 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: +1.5±4.2 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. (1,106 repeats, 1,354 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 74 34% −3.2±7.6
1stAd courtT 247 35% +6.8±4.7
1stAd courtWide 380 30% +2.6±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 98 37% ±0.0±7.0
1stDeuce courtT 385 27% +1.6±3.6
1stDeuce courtWide 343 29% +1.8±3.9
2ndAd courtBody 101 47% −2.2±7.2
2ndAd courtT 83 54% +4.5±7.7
2ndAd courtWide 280 47% −1.7±4.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 159 50% +0.6±6.0
2ndDeuce courtT 222 52% +2.6±5.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 66 50% +2.4±8.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.1% · won 63% · −3.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 60% · −6.0±8.9 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 58% · −8.2±8.2 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 56% · −10.7±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 57% · −9.3±8.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 53% · +12.3±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 46% · +6.0±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, deep used 3.0% · won 45% · +4.6±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, short used 3.4% · won 43% · +3.1±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 3.0% · won 43% · +2.5±9.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 1.2% · won 66% · +15.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 3.6% · won 55% · +4.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 3.0% · won 55% · +5.1±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 3.5% · won 55% · +4.6±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 58% · +7.6±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 Daniel Evans wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH inside-out → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.4% · won 64% · +12.7±10.9 vs own baseline · +23.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roberto Carballes Baena (7/10)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.3% · won 65% · +14.3±12.3 vs own baseline · +14.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 0.6% · won 60% · +9.0±10.2 vs own baseline · +23.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (3/6), Karen Khachanov (10/13)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.4% · won 61% · +10.6±11.3 vs own baseline · +1.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex De Minaur (4/7)
  5. BH slice through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 0.5% · won 61% · +9.7±10.9 vs own baseline · +21.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (4/10), Karen Khachanov (7/8)
  6. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 1.7% · won 56% · +4.9±7.0 vs own baseline · +12.4 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 their backhand · rally+2.7740
BH slice to their backhand · return +1+2.6249
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.5157
FH to the middle · return +1+2.4127
BH to their forehand · rally+2.2159

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−5.4126
FH to their backhand · return−3.9182
BH to their backhand · return−1.6382
BH to the middle · return−1.2557
FH to their forehand · return−1.1150

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.08, Jack Draper +0.76, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.65, Casper Ruud +0.53, Pedro Martinez +0.48

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +2.03, Adrian Mannarino +2.00, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.98, Fabian Marozsan +1.97, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.91

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Karen Khachanov, Andy Murray, Joao Fonseca, Yoshihito Nishioka

Tactical fingerprint

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

Backhand slice74%
Chipped returns52%
BH down the line34%
T serves · deuce57%
Wide serves · ad56%
Run-around forehands27%
Avg rally length4.4
Drop shots / shot2.3%
Points at net15%
Deep returns32%
FH down the line33%
Through the middle25%
Serve & volley10%
1st serve in61%
Forehand share51%
T serves · ad34%
Point-ending shots19.6%
Unforced errors / shot6.9%
Wide serves · deuce31%

Plays most like

  1. Lorenzo Musetti 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Christopher Oconnell 2015–2026 plan v
  3. Steve Johnson 2015–2022 plan v
  4. Corentin Moutet 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Tommy Haas 1996–2017 plan v
  6. Grigor Dimitrov 2009–2026 plan v
  7. Nicolas Mahut 2007–2021 plan v
  8. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010
  2. Ivan Lendl 1979–1994
  3. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005

Charted matches