RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 56 charted matches · 1997–2007

Gustavo Kuerten

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 66.9% ±2.4 raw 65.8% · tour 63.4% · 5,752 points
Return points won 36.9% ±2.6 raw 36.6% · tour 36.6% · 5,779 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 ±0.05 better than 89% of ATP · raw +0.16
Shot selection −0.12 ±0.12 better than 37% of ATP · raw −0.11
Execution +0.04 ±0.26 better than 71% of ATP · raw +0.18
Tactical adaptability +0.29 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 55 matches
Adaptation speed +0.22 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.34 ±0.53 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,664 shots · better than 31% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.48 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 64% 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 27,625 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Gustavo Kuerten 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 · 1,598 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 48.7%±2.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 20% 46.6%±4.4 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 49.9%±5.2 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 38.8%±7.6 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.6%±8.3 35.1%
FH inside-out 2% 59.6%±10.8 51.8%
FH inside-in 2% 54.4%±11.0 54.7%
BH crosscourt + approach 1% 63.6%±12.7 69.0%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,134 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 48.6%±3.7 46.6%
FH down the line 29% 42.1%±4.4 44.7%
FH through the middle 23% 38.2%±4.8 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 2% 35.7%±12.6 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 1% 66.3%±13.0 69.3%
FH slice down the line 1% 25.4%±11.9 25.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,061 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 51.3%±4.9 52.7%
FH down the line 24% 54.2%±5.0 51.5%
BH crosscourt 14% 53.2%±6.4 49.1%
FH through the middle 12% 49.9%±6.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 11% 49.9%±7.0 46.8%
BH down the line 7% 52.9%±8.6 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 4% 76.4%±9.1 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 76.2%±11.4 69.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 885 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 47.9%±4.3 46.9%
BH through the middle 25% 45.5%±5.3 43.0%
BH down the line 19% 48.9%±5.9 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 6% 37.0%±9.6 32.6%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 29.1%±9.2 40.9%
BH slice down the line 1% 39.6%±14.2 33.3%
FH inside-out 1% 43.0%±14.6 51.7%
FH inside-in 1% 49.1%±15.0 53.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Gustavo Kuerten's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 437 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 38% 78% / 73%
Body 5% 5% 62% / 63%
T 54% 57% 80% / 75%

2,815 normal · 87 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 65% 61% 75% / 73%
Body 4% 4% 63% / 63%
T 32% 35% 77% / 72%

2,345 normal · 350 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
Wide42% 65.8%±2.2 n=1,214 38% ▼
Body5% 62.4%±6.3 n=131 0% ▼
T54% 66.6%±1.9 n=1,557 62% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.80).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide64% 64.6%±1.9 n=1,730 55% ▼
Body4% 62.4%±7.0 n=101 0% ▼
T32% 65.4%±2.6 n=864 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.82).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.26 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: +0.5±2.1 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. (3,296 repeats, 2,189 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 102 30% −6.6±6.6
1stAd courtT 566 27% −1.5±3.0
1stAd courtWide 896 29% +1.3±2.4
1stDeuce courtBody 147 39% +2.3±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 653 27% +1.9±2.8
1stDeuce courtWide 896 26% −1.2±2.4
2ndAd courtBody 150 48% −1.7±6.1
2ndAd courtT 147 47% −2.5±6.2
2ndAd courtWide 836 50% +2.0±2.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 330 45% −3.5±4.3
2ndDeuce courtT 569 50% −0.1±3.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 322 54% +5.5±4.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 59% · −9.2±5.5 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 57% · −11.2±6.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 4.1% · won 58% · −9.7±5.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 59% · −9.6±4.9 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 57% · −11.5±5.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.3% · won 53% · +15.0±6.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.7% · won 48% · +9.5±4.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.9% · won 46% · +7.9±4.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.9% · won 48% · +9.6±5.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.1% · won 49% · +10.8±7.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 52% · +3.7±4.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 54% · +5.8±7.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.3% · won 53% · +4.7±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH down the line used 1.0% · won 54% · +5.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 51% · +2.3±5.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +8.2±7.9 vs own baseline · +2.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gaston Gaudio (2/7), Magnus Norman (5/9)
  2. FH down the line + approach → BH slice through the middle → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 67% · +17.1±12.1 vs own baseline · +8.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.5±8.1 vs own baseline · +9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Magnus Norman (4/7), Alex Corretja (6/9)
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.2% · won 62% · +12.1±10.9 vs own baseline · +25.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.2±8.0 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (3/8), Magnus Norman (4/10)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 55% · +4.5±5.9 vs own baseline · +6.4 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 · serve +1+2.0387
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.1903
Body 1st serve · deuce court+1.0131
Body 2nd serve · ad court+0.9254
T 2nd serve · deuce court+0.8599

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.3205
Body 1st serve · deuce court−1.4206
BH slice to the middle · return−1.3551
T 1st serve · ad court−1.21,020
FH to their backhand · return +1−0.9327

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jack Draper, Jannik Sinner, Miomir Kecmanovic, Alexander Zverev, Kei Nishikori

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad64%
T serves · deuce54%
FH down the line35%
BH down the line23%
Point-ending shots26.5%
Drop shots / shot2.1%
Unforced errors / shot10.6%
Chipped returns15%
Avg rally length3.8
Points at net10%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Serve & volley3%
Forehand share50%
Run-around forehands12%
Backhand slice10%
Deep returns21%
T serves · ad32%
Through the middle20%
1st serve in54%

Plays most like

  1. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001 plan v
  2. Marat Safin 1998–2009 plan v
  3. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026 plan v
  4. David Nalbandian 2002–2012 plan v
  5. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  6. Wayne Ferreira 1992–2003 plan v
  7. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009 plan v
  8. Paul Henri Mathieu 2002–2016 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026
  2. Sebastian Korda 2021–2026
  3. David Goffin 2013–2025

Charted matches