RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 16 charted matches · 2019–2024

Gijs Brouwer

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.5% ±3.2 raw 63.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,154 points
Return points won 36.4% ±3.2 raw 35.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,111 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 +0.02 ±0.09 better than 62% of ATP · raw +0.03
Shot selection −0.08 ±0.26 better than 42% of ATP · raw −0.06
Execution −1.66 ±0.67 better than 7% of ATP · raw −1.37
Tactical adaptability −0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 16 matches
Adaptation speed −0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.10 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 16% 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 5,394 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Gijs Brouwer 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 · 345 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 25% 51.0%±8.0 47.6%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 49.4%±9.3 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 13% 41.6%±10.1 35.1%
FH inside-out 11% 58.5%±10.7 51.8%
BH through the middle 8% 43.2%±11.8 43.7%
FH inside-in 8% 60.3%±11.6 54.7%
BH down the line 7% 40.2%±12.3 46.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 41.5%±12.5 37.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 205 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 57% 55.0%±7.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 21% 43.3%±10.3 41.5%
FH down the line 20% 36.6%±10.2 44.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 179 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 55.3%±8.4 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 63.0%±10.6 51.5%
FH through the middle 8% 41.1%±13.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 7% 52.6%±14.3 46.8%
FH crosscourt + approach 6% 67.7%±13.8 69.9%
BH down the line 6% 47.3%±14.8 48.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 54% to the average player · 153 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 35% 49.6%±9.6 53.4%
FH crosscourt 35% 47.6%±9.5 56.0%
FH through the middle 18% 59.3%±11.7 47.3%
FH crosscourt + approach 7% 73.0%±13.1 73.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +10 How much less varied Gijs Brouwer's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 82 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 30% 32% 82% / 73%
Body 12% 5% 57% / 63%
T 58% 63% 69% / 75%

582 normal · 19 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 60% 59% 67% / 73%
Body 8% 3% 68% / 63%
T 32% 38% 71% / 72%

486 normal · 63 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
Wide30% 68.4%±5.2 n=183 44% ▲
Body12% 54.5%±8.2 n=70 0% ▼
T58% 64.1%±4.1 n=348 56% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.020): serve wide more. Gap 4.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.0 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide60% 63.2%±4.2 n=330 73% ▲
Body7% 65.3%±9.4 n=40 0% ▼
T33% 61.5%±5.5 n=179 27% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.76).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.65 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: +2.9±4.7 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. (510 repeats, 608 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 58 30% −7.3±8.0
1stAd courtT 155 27% −1.3±5.4
1stAd courtWide 104 22% −5.5±5.9
1stDeuce courtBody 60 41% +4.4±8.5
1stDeuce courtT 137 31% +6.4±5.9
1stDeuce courtWide 169 25% −2.0±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 74 53% +3.3±8.1
2ndAd courtT 75 48% −0.9±8.0
2ndAd courtWide 57 48% −0.7±8.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 78 52% +2.6±7.9
2ndDeuce courtT 50 46% −3.6±9.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 93 42% −6.3±7.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.7% · won 71% · +2.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.7% · won 71% · +2.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt + approach used 2.9% · won 68% · −0.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 68% · −0.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt used 2.3% · won 63% · −5.4±11.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.0% · won 51% · +12.6±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 47% · +9.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.5% · won 40% · +2.0±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.8% · won 33% · −4.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 32% · −5.8±10.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 14.9% · won 55% · +4.3±7.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 5.3% · won 54% · +2.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.3% · won 53% · +2.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 4.3% · won 52% · +0.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 51% · +0.4±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 Gijs Brouwer wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 58% · +7.0±12.7 vs own baseline · +14.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 57% · +5.7±11.7 vs own baseline · +9.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by J J Wolf (4/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +5.9±12.9 vs own baseline · +17.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marc Andrea Huesler (5/7)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 54% · +2.9±9.6 vs own baseline · +6.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (3/6), Paul Jubb (7/12)
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +0.9±13.0 vs own baseline · −4.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +0.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.5 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

BH to their forehand · rally+0.9158
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.2330
T 1st serve · deuce court±0.0348
T 1st serve · ad court−0.6179
FH to the middle · return−1.0223

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return +1−1.5137
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.2211
FH to their backhand · rally−1.0337
BH to the middle · return−0.8292
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.4188

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.00, Jack Draper +0.45, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.44, Pedro Martinez +0.42, Casper Ruud +0.40

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.30, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.23, Pedro Martinez +0.08, Alexander Shevchenko −0.01, Roberto Bautista Agut −0.02

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jack Draper, Ugo Humbert, Rafael Nadal, Casper Ruud, Pablo Carreno Busta

Tactical fingerprint

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

1st serve in69%
T serves · deuce58%
Backhand slice47%
Forehand share62%
Wide serves · ad60%
Run-around forehands27%
Deep returns32%
BH down the line24%
Unforced errors / shot10.9%
Point-ending shots25.5%
Chipped returns18%
Points at net12%
Avg rally length3.8
Serve & volley3%
FH down the line27%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
T serves · ad33%
Through the middle19%
Wide serves · deuce30%

Plays most like

  1. Fernando Verdasco 2005–2022 plan v
  2. Rafael Nadal 2003–2024 plan v
  3. Philipp Kohlschreiber 2008–2019 plan v
  4. Joao Fonseca 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Juan Martin Del Potro 2007–2022 plan v
  6. Denis Shapovalov 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Tim Van Rijthoven 2021–2023 plan v
  8. Jeremy Chardy 2013–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010
  2. Tommy Haas 1996–2017
  3. Nicolas Massu 2000–2009

Charted matches