RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 66 charted matches · 2019–2025

Holger Rune

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.6% ±2.4 raw 62.9% · tour 63.4% · 5,750 points
Return points won 37.6% ±2.5 raw 35.0% · tour 36.6% · 5,540 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 −0.08 ±0.07 better than 35% of ATP · raw −0.08
Shot selection +0.20 ±0.12 better than 72% of ATP · raw +0.20
Execution −0.49 ±0.34 better than 45% of ATP · raw −0.46
Tactical adaptability −0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 64 matches
Adaptation speed −0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.60 ±0.51 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 3,284 shots · better than 99% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.80 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 30% 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 28,008 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Holger Rune 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 · 1,680 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 39% 48.1%±3.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 45.0%±4.0 43.7%
BH down the line 9% 42.7%±6.3 46.4%
FH inside-out 8% 58.9%±6.6 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 41.0%±7.0 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 30.7%±7.6 35.1%
FH inside-in 3% 62.1%±9.3 54.7%
FH through the middle 2% 49.2%±11.1 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,210 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 46.7%±4.3 51.5%
FH through the middle 16% 51.6%±5.6 47.0%
BH through the middle 15% 51.4%±5.8 46.8%
FH crosscourt 13% 58.2%±6.0 52.7%
BH crosscourt 11% 45.6%±6.6 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 4% 67.9%±9.5 70.5%
BH down the line 3% 51.2%±11.0 48.3%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 46.4%±12.4 47.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,086 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 47.8%±3.7 48.0%
BH through the middle 23% 42.4%±4.9 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 38.9%±7.2 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 40.0%±8.0 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 7% 33.0%±7.9 35.1%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 53.6%±10.9 47.8%
FH inside-out 2% 52.4%±12.5 52.6%
FH inside-in 2% 65.5%±12.2 54.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,033 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 29% 46.0%±4.6 46.6%
FH through the middle 26% 41.6%±4.8 41.5%
FH down the line 26% 52.2%±4.9 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 10% 27.7%±6.6 24.5%
FH slice down the line 4% 26.1%±9.5 25.6%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 33.8%±12.0 30.9%
FH down the line + approach 1% 71.0%±12.6 69.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Holger Rune's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 469 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 59% 71% / 73%
Body 10% 8% 66% / 63%
T 37% 33% 70% / 75%

2,890 normal · 114 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 44% 71% / 73%
Body 7% 5% 60% / 63%
T 44% 51% 71% / 72%

2,383 normal · 355 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
Wide53% 64.4%±2.0 n=1,598 66% ▲
Body10% 62.5%±4.3 n=310 0% ▼
T36% 62.5%±2.4 n=1,096 34% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.53).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 62.5%±2.2 n=1,338 56% ▲
Body7% 55.8%±5.6 n=180 0% ▼
T45% 62.9%±2.2 n=1,220 44%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.35 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: ±0.0±2.0 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. (2,132 repeats, 3,478 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 178 33% −3.8±5.4
1stAd courtT 675 27% −0.9±2.8
1stAd courtWide 743 29% +1.5±2.7
1stDeuce courtBody 182 32% −5.1±5.3
1stDeuce courtT 755 23% −2.3±2.5
1stDeuce courtWide 892 27% −0.3±2.4
2ndAd courtBody 448 49% −0.3±3.8
2ndAd courtT 181 42% −7.7±5.6
2ndAd courtWide 410 47% −1.2±3.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 433 52% +3.4±3.8
2ndDeuce courtT 391 46% −3.4±4.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 240 50% +2.1±5.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 63% · −4.0±6.4 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 62% · −5.1±6.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −9.4±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 57% · −10.1±5.6 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 56% · −10.9±5.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.1% · won 50% · +11.8±6.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.5% · won 48% · +10.3±7.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 48% · +9.3±6.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 45% · +7.0±6.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 46% · +8.3±7.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 57% · +8.5±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 56% · +8.0±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 56% · +7.9±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 53% · +4.4±6.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.6% · won 52% · +3.8±6.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.2% · won 66% · +16.0±10.6 vs own baseline · +24.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash crosscourt used 0.1% · won 68% · +18.8±11.7 vs own baseline · +5.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 62% · +12.7±11.1 vs own baseline · −1.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +10.7±10.2 vs own baseline · +8.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (6/9)
  5. T serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 61% · +11.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +21.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Wide serve → FH crosscourt return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 63% · +13.9±12.5 vs own baseline · +13.1 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 their forehand · rally+2.41,138
FH to the middle · rally+2.1845
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.0335
FH volley to their forehand · rally+1.8122
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.8499

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.2785
BH to their forehand · return +1−2.2225
FH to the middle · return−1.41,077
FH volley to their forehand · rally−1.0122
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.81,247

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.88, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.55, Casper Ruud +1.38, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.36, Jack Draper +1.35

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.32, Fabian Marozsan +1.32, Pedro Martinez +1.22, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.21, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.19

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Brandon Nakashima, Rinky Hijikata, Thiago Seyboth Wild, Jannik Sinner

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce53%
FH down the line37%
Drop shots / shot3.2%
T serves · ad45%
Through the middle27%
Run-around forehands25%
Forehand share56%
Deep returns30%
Point-ending shots25.1%
Unforced errors / shot10.1%
Points at net12%
Avg rally length3.9
1st serve in61%
Chipped returns14%
Wide serves · ad49%
Serve & volley5%
Backhand slice16%
BH down the line15%
T serves · deuce36%

Plays most like

  1. Matteo Arnaldi 2022–2025 plan v
  2. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  3. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025 plan v
  4. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  5. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  6. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  7. Jakub Mensik 2022–2026 plan v
  8. Alejandro Tabilo 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  3. Mario Ancic 2002–2008

Charted matches