RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 20 charted matches · 2008–2020

Ernests Gulbis

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 68.5% ±2.8 raw 67.1% · tour 63.4% · 1,545 points
Return points won 38.9% ±3.1 raw 35.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,561 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 −0.01 ±0.09 better than 55% of ATP · raw −0.01
Shot selection −0.56 ±0.20 better than 9% of ATP · raw −0.57
Execution −0.24 ±0.49 better than 55% of ATP · raw −0.39
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.41 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 71% 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 7,763 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ernests Gulbis 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 · 472 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 51.5%±5.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 30.8%±6.4 43.7%
BH down the line 16% 40.3%±8.3 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 31.1%±12.5 42.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 372 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 20% 46.6%±8.5 46.8%
BH crosscourt 19% 47.6%±8.6 49.1%
FH crosscourt 17% 53.7%±9.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 16% 44.3%±9.1 47.0%
FH down the line 14% 45.6%±9.6 51.5%
BH down the line 12% 52.6%±10.3 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 308 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 46.7%±7.3 46.6%
FH through the middle 26% 40.9%±8.0 41.5%
FH down the line 24% 47.3%±8.4 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 20.8%±10.8 24.5%
FH slice down the line 6% 22.0%±11.2 25.6%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 37.3%±14.5 30.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 51.5%±6.3 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 43.9%±8.8 43.8%
BH down the line 20% 49.7%±9.1 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 33.4%±13.5 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 46.5%±14.7 42.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Ernests Gulbis's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 98 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 57% ▲ 79% / 73%
Body 10% 19% ▲ 70% / 63%
T 44% 24% ▼ 77% / 75%

775 normal · 21 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 52% 74% / 73%
Body 10% 13% 59% / 63%
T 42% 35% 79% / 72%

659 normal · 77 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
Wide46% 66.5%±3.9 n=364 43% ▼
Body11% 66.7%±7.3 n=84 0% ▼
T44% 68.1%±3.9 n=348 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.87).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 66.1%±4.0 n=358 46% ▼
Body10% 60.4%±7.9 n=74 0% ▼
T41% 69.5%±4.1 n=304 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.67 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: +0.3±3.9 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. (570 repeats, 922 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 73 35% −1.9±7.7
1stAd courtT 204 34% +5.5±5.1
1stAd courtWide 197 26% −1.2±4.8
1stDeuce courtBody 65 35% −2.0±8.0
1stDeuce courtT 239 25% −0.3±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 232 29% +2.3±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 103 45% −4.4±7.1
2ndAd courtT 52 46% −3.2±9.1
2ndAd courtWide 107 49% +0.9±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 123 48% −1.5±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 101 49% −0.9±7.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 45 47% −0.8±9.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 67% · −5.6±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 66% · −6.1±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 65% · −7.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 61% · −11.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 64% · −8.5±8.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 51% · +13.8±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.8% · won 46% · +8.0±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 47% · +9.2±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.9% · won 46% · +8.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.1% · won 47% · +8.9±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 10.0% · won 51% · +4.9±6.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 54% · +7.4±8.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 51% · +4.5±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 52% · +5.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 51% · +4.7±9.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 61% · +13.9±11.1 vs own baseline · +22.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (5/7)
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 57% · +9.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +18.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (3/6)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 54% · +6.9±10.1 vs own baseline · +9.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (6/11), Mohamed Safwat (6/7)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 52% · +4.6±7.5 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hyeon Chung (2/7), Karim Mohamed Maamoun (5/10)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 55% · +7.4±11.7 vs own baseline · +13.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (6/11)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.9% · won 53% · +5.8±10.8 vs own baseline · +9.9 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

T 1st serve · ad court+2.5304
BH to their forehand · serve +1+0.9157
BH to the middle · return+0.8363
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.7348
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.5358

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.3324
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−0.8322
BH to the middle · rally−0.7293
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.5123
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.3400

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Reilly Opelka, Nicolas Jarry, Nick Kyrgios, Maxime Cressy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot3.4%
Unforced errors / shot11.8%
BH down the line24%
FH down the line33%
Through the middle26%
Wide serves · deuce46%
T serves · ad41%
Point-ending shots24.2%
Avg rally length3.9
T serves · deuce44%
Wide serves · ad49%
Serve & volley1%
1st serve in59%
Deep returns23%
Chipped returns9%
Points at net7%
Backhand slice8%
Run-around forehands2%
Forehand share43%

Plays most like

  1. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  2. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025 plan v
  3. Viktor Troicki 2009–2021 plan v
  4. Tomas Machac 2020–2026 plan v
  5. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  6. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  7. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  8. Richard Gasquet 2002–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002
  2. Thomas Enqvist 1993–2001
  3. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001

Charted matches