RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 39 charted matches · 2021–2024

Emil Ruusuvuori

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.4% ±2.5 raw 62.2% · tour 63.4% · 3,158 points
Return points won 40.0% ±2.6 raw 36.9% · tour 36.6% · 3,166 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 −0.16 ±0.06 better than 19% of ATP · raw −0.16
Shot selection +0.32 ±0.10 better than 81% of ATP · raw +0.32
Execution −0.31 ±0.37 better than 52% of ATP · raw −0.35
Tactical adaptability −0.06 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 39 matches
Adaptation speed +0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.18 ±0.54 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,594 shots · better than 54% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.31 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 83% 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 17,553 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Emil Ruusuvuori 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 · 1,143 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 54.0%±3.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 38.7%±4.6 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 42.8%±6.4 46.4%
FH inside-out 3% 55.4%±11.2 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 45.0%±11.6 42.5%
FH inside-in 2% 55.9%±12.8 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 2% 29.0%±12.1 35.1%
FH through the middle 1% 50.1%±14.1 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,136 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 54.2%±4.7 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 52.5%±5.0 51.5%
FH through the middle 16% 45.5%±5.8 47.0%
BH through the middle 13% 47.0%±6.2 46.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 51.7%±6.3 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 49.6%±9.2 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 76.8%±10.1 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 1% 72.1%±12.3 69.9%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 901 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 49.9%±4.3 46.6%
FH through the middle 28% 48.6%±5.0 41.5%
FH down the line 27% 41.0%±5.0 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 3% 31.2%±10.7 24.5%
FH slice down the line 2% 22.6%±11.5 25.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 735 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 45.6%±4.3 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 49.4%±5.9 43.8%
BH down the line 15% 45.9%±7.3 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 39.6%±11.5 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 36.8%±11.3 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 28.3%±11.3 35.8%
FH inside-out 2% 50.1%±13.9 52.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Emil Ruusuvuori's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 287 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 43% ▲ 68% / 73%
Body 23% 21% 62% / 63%
T 43% 37% 72% / 75%

1,588 normal · 63 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 44% 70% / 73%
Body 17% 15% 66% / 63%
T 45% 41% 69% / 72%

1,280 normal · 224 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
Wide35% 61.3%±3.3 n=572 34%
Body23% 59.4%±4.0 n=374 10% ▼
T43% 63.8%±2.9 n=705 56% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.29).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide39% 63.8%±3.2 n=585 52% ▲
Body16% 62.6%±4.8 n=245 3% ▼
T45% 61.5%±3.0 n=674 45%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.68).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.47 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: −2.0±3.5 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. (843 repeats, 2,234 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 73 38% +1.0±7.9
1stAd courtT 421 29% +1.1±3.5
1stAd courtWide 465 28% +0.3±3.3
1stDeuce courtBody 111 39% +2.3±6.8
1stDeuce courtT 436 27% +2.1±3.4
1stDeuce courtWide 483 29% +2.1±3.3
2ndAd courtBody 166 47% −2.0±5.9
2ndAd courtT 74 56% +6.3±8.0
2ndAd courtWide 316 46% −2.8±4.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 224 52% +3.2±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 226 52% +2.2±5.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 166 50% +1.6±5.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 69% · +3.7±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 65% · −0.5±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 64% · −0.7±7.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 61% · −4.2±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 59% · −6.4±8.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.7% · won 55% · +14.9±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 52% · +11.4±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.3% · won 50% · +10.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 52% · +11.6±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 48% · +7.2±7.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 55% · +5.4±4.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 55% · +5.8±6.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 55% · +6.2±7.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 53% · +4.0±5.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 53% · +4.1±6.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 63% · +13.1±10.9 vs own baseline · +20.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 55% · +4.8±5.4 vs own baseline · +7.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefanos Tsitsipas (2/6), Mackenzie Mcdonald (2/6)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 58% · +7.2±7.6 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roberto Bautista Agut (1/6), Hubert Hurkacz (4/7)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 55% · +4.6±5.8 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mackenzie Mcdonald (3/12), Diego Schwartzman (3/9)
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, short → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 61% · +10.9±11.3 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (4/7)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 55% · +4.5±6.3 vs own baseline · +6.8 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+1.7630
BH to the middle · return +1+1.0260
BH to the middle · return+0.8788
BH to their backhand · serve +1+0.7429
FH to their forehand · rally+0.41,304

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · return +1−1.8261
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.8453
BH to their backhand · return−1.2474
BH to the middle · return−1.1725
BH to the middle · serve +1−1.0211

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Miomir Kecmanovic +1.35, Rafael Nadal +1.24, Casper Ruud +1.13, Pedro Martinez +1.09, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.07

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.09, Pedro Martinez +1.02, Fabian Marozsan +0.98, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.91, Alexander Shevchenko +0.83

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Brandon Nakashima, Diego Schwartzman, Alejandro Davidovich Fokina, Daniil Medvedev, Sebastian Baez

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns35%
Avg rally length4.5
T serves · ad45%
1st serve in64%
Through the middle27%
Unforced errors / shot10.5%
Forehand share54%
FH down the line30%
T serves · deuce43%
Serve & volley2%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Point-ending shots21.4%
BH down the line17%
Points at net8%
Run-around forehands13%
Backhand slice9%
Chipped returns2%
Wide serves · deuce35%
Wide serves · ad39%

Plays most like

  1. Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Botic Van De Zandschulp 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Ilya Ivashka 2018–2023 plan v
  4. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014 plan v
  5. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  6. Alexander Zverev 2014–2026 plan v
  7. Viktor Troicki 2009–2021 plan v
  8. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. Marat Safin 1998–2009
  3. Andy Roddick 2001–2012

Charted matches