RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 5 charted matches · 2025–2025

Elmer Moller

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.5% ±3.8 raw 56.7% · tour 63.4% · 441 points
Return points won 37.7% ±3.8 raw 38.2% · tour 36.6% · 456 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 −0.11 ±0.21 better than 27% of ATP · raw −0.11
Shot selection −0.26 ±0.30 better than 27% of ATP · raw −0.24
Execution −1.20 ±0.33 better than 19% of ATP · raw −0.90

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 2,032 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Elmer Moller 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 forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 124 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 51.0%±9.1 46.6%
FH through the middle 34% 36.0%±10.0 41.5%
FH down the line 17% 43.8%±12.7 44.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 108 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 23% 49.7%±12.3 46.8%
FH down the line 23% 45.1%±12.2 51.5%
FH crosscourt 15% 48.7%±13.7 52.7%
BH crosscourt 14% 48.1%±13.9 49.1%
BH down the line 14% 59.0%±13.7 48.3%
FH through the middle 11% 41.9%±14.3 47.0%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 92 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 42.6%±9.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 48.4%±12.0 43.7%
BH down the line 20% 40.2%±13.1 46.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 75 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 61% 38.4%±9.9 46.9%
FH through the middle 25% 41.7%±13.0 41.4%
FH down the line 13% 39.9%±14.7 44.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +11 How much less varied Elmer Moller's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 52 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 33% 71% / 73%
Body 19% 0% ▼ 64% / 63%
T 41% 67% ▲ 63% / 75%

217 normal · 9 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 49% ▲ 59% / 73%
Body 22% 16% 65% / 63%
T 42% 35% 68% / 72%

171 normal · 43 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% 58.8%±7.4 n=89 52% ▲
Body19% 59.6%±9.5 n=42 6% ▼
T42% 51.8%±7.4 n=95 42%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.30).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 51.4%±7.7 n=84 40%
Body21% 61.3%±9.3 n=44 7% ▼
T40% 61.0%±7.4 n=86 53% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.50 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: +4.9±14.5 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. (145 repeats, 285 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 15 38% +1.0±11.9
1stAd courtT 59 27% −0.6±7.8
1stAd courtWide 62 36% +8.8±8.2
1stDeuce courtBody 23 36% −0.8±10.8
1stDeuce courtT 42 23% −2.1±8.2
1stDeuce courtWide 74 27% −0.1±7.2
2ndAd courtBody 42 44% −5.2±9.6
2ndAd courtT 13 48% −0.9±12.5
2ndAd courtWide 30 58% +9.2±10.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 44 47% −2.1±9.5
2ndDeuce courtT 26 52% +1.9±11.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 26 49% +0.9±11.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Not enough data

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.3% · won 48% · +3.7±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 6.5% · won 48% · +3.4±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.2% · won 42% · −1.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 42% · −2.6±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 42% · −2.6±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 48% · +2.0±12.0 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tommy Paul (4/11), Hamad Medjedovic (7/9)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 45% · −0.9±11.6 vs own baseline · −4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tommy Paul (3/13), Lukas Neumayer (3/6)
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 41% · −4.2±12.6 vs own baseline · −10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tommy Paul (0/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 41% · −5.2±12.4 vs own baseline · −13.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tommy Paul (3/9)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 39% · −7.1±12.7 vs own baseline · −22.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tommy Paul (3/8)

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 forehand · rally−0.1173
BH to their backhand · rally−0.4125

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−0.1179

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roberto Carballes Baena, Roberto Bautista Agut, Miomir Kecmanovic, Pedro Martinez, Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Charted matches