RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 49 charted matches · 2015–2025

Diego Schwartzman

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.1% ±2.6 raw 58.7% · tour 63.4% · 3,875 points
Return points won 40.2% ±2.7 raw 37.5% · tour 36.6% · 3,986 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 −0.08 ±0.08 better than 36% of ATP · raw −0.08
Shot selection −0.16 ±0.09 better than 33% of ATP · raw −0.16
Execution +0.13 ±0.29 better than 74% of ATP · raw +0.10
Tactical adaptability +0.20 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 49 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.44 ±0.44 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 4,189 shots · better than 18% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.35 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 79% 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 23,381 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Diego Schwartzman 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 · 1,713 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 53% 50.7%±2.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 49.4%±4.1 43.7%
BH down the line 9% 53.9%±6.2 46.4%
FH inside-out 4% 51.0%±8.6 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 39.0%±8.4 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 38.7%±8.5 35.1%
FH inside-in 1% 61.2%±12.1 54.7%
FH through the middle 1% 40.7%±14.3 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,427 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 21% 48.7%±4.6 51.5%
FH through the middle 20% 54.0%±4.7 47.0%
FH crosscourt 19% 51.8%±4.9 52.7%
BH through the middle 16% 47.5%±5.3 46.8%
BH crosscourt 15% 54.9%±5.3 49.1%
BH down the line 4% 51.4%±9.0 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 72.3%±11.2 70.5%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 69.5%±13.6 67.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,219 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 47.4%±3.3 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 46.9%±4.9 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 50.9%±6.9 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 49.4%±8.1 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 35.9%±9.6 35.1%
FH inside-out 3% 57.1%±10.8 52.6%
FH inside-in 2% 65.7%±11.4 54.3%
BH slice down the line 1% 34.7%±13.2 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,094 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 45% 45.8%±3.6 46.6%
FH through the middle 31% 46.0%±4.3 41.5%
FH down the line 16% 48.7%±5.9 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 4% 32.7%±9.6 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 32.4%±10.9 30.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +4 How much less varied Diego Schwartzman's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 403 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 60% 66% / 73%
Body 17% 12% 62% / 63%
T 30% 28% 66% / 75%

1,908 normal · 105 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 36% 34% 65% / 73%
Body 16% 14% 63% / 63%
T 48% 52% 61% / 72%

1,556 normal · 298 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
Wide53% 60.0%±2.4 n=1,069 66% ▲
Body17% 56.0%±4.2 n=343 4% ▼
T30% 59.2%±3.2 n=601 30%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.35).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide36% 57.5%±3.1 n=666 36%
Body16% 60.3%±4.5 n=290 29% ▲
T48% 58.2%±2.7 n=898 35% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.65).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.23 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: −0.4±1.9 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. (1,439 repeats, 2,330 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 109 46% +9.1±7.0
1stAd courtT 485 30% +2.1±3.3
1stAd courtWide 565 25% −2.5±2.9
1stDeuce courtBody 129 48% +11.7±6.5
1stDeuce courtT 538 26% +0.9±3.0
1stDeuce courtWide 604 28% +0.9±2.9
2ndAd courtBody 307 51% +1.6±4.5
2ndAd courtT 121 46% −3.1±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 314 48% −0.5±4.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 315 54% +4.5±4.4
2ndDeuce courtT 318 49% −0.9±4.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 176 50% +1.6±5.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 61% · ±0.0±8.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 60% · −1.8±7.1 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 58% · −3.6±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 57% · −4.9±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 56% · −5.0±7.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 53% · +12.8±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 54% · +13.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 48% · +7.7±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 45% · +5.1±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.9% · won 44% · +3.8±7.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 55% · +5.2±5.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.4% · won 55% · +5.0±5.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 1.8% · won 55% · +4.7±6.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 1.3% · won 54% · +4.3±7.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 52% · +1.7±3.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 60% · +9.6±7.6 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (5/10), Elias Ymer (4/8)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 63% · +12.5±10.7 vs own baseline · +16.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (5/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 60% · +9.4±9.1 vs own baseline · +14.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefanos Tsitsipas (6/9)
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 58% · +8.1±8.5 vs own baseline · +14.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (3/8), Dominic Thiem (6/6)
  5. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 60% · +9.6±10.8 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.6% · won 56% · +6.0±8.0 vs own baseline · +10.6 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 the middle · return +1+2.8261
BH to their forehand · return+2.4141
BH to the middle · return +1+2.0312
FH to the middle · rally+1.81,181
BH to the middle · return+1.6760

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−3.0811
BH to their backhand · return−2.6436
BH to their forehand · return−2.5239
FH to the middle · return−2.1997
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.8312

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.07, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.00, Casper Ruud +1.74, Jack Draper +1.73, Pedro Martinez +1.70

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.63, Pedro Martinez +1.54, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.52, Fabian Marozsan +1.43, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.43

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Cameron Norrie, Daniil Medvedev, Dusan Lajovic, Ugo Humbert

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length5.0
Wide serves · deuce53%
T serves · ad48%
Through the middle29%
1st serve in64%
Deep returns28%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Chipped returns13%
Run-around forehands15%
Forehand share51%
FH down the line29%
Serve & volley0%
Points at net7%
Backhand slice11%
Unforced errors / shot8.1%
BH down the line13%
Point-ending shots17.3%
Wide serves · ad36%
T serves · deuce30%

Plays most like

  1. Tomas Martin Etcheverry 2022–2026 plan v
  2. Gilles Simon 2008–2022 plan v
  3. Pablo Carreno Busta 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Sebastian Baez 2021–2026 plan v
  5. David Ferrer 2003–2019 plan v
  6. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025 plan v
  7. Hyeon Chung 2015–2019 plan v
  8. Carlos Berlocq 2011–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guillermo Canas 2001–2007
  2. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005
  3. Jiri Novak 1996–2004

Charted matches