RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 320 charted matches · 2018–2026

Hubert Hurkacz

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 69.1% ±2.0 raw 68.3% · tour 63.4% · 26,627 points
Return points won 36.5% ±2.2 raw 34.4% · tour 36.6% · 27,183 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 +0.09 ±0.02 better than 79% of ATP · raw +0.09
Shot selection +0.14 ±0.05 better than 68% of ATP · raw +0.15
Execution −0.38 ±0.15 better than 49% of ATP · raw −0.22
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 312 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.55 ±0.32 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 14,436 shots · better than 98% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.49 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 62% 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 130,842 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Hubert Hurkacz 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 · 7,165 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 43.1%±1.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 42.5%±2.0 43.7%
BH down the line 16% 45.3%±2.4 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 39.3%±3.5 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 33.0%±4.3 35.1%
FH inside-out 3% 48.2%±5.8 51.8%
FH inside-in 2% 52.1%±6.0 54.7%
BH slice down the line 2% 26.3%±5.9 37.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 6,153 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 42.8%±1.8 46.6%
FH down the line 30% 40.2%±1.9 44.7%
FH through the middle 19% 38.2%±2.3 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 5% 29.5%±4.1 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 4% 69.8%±4.4 69.3%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 30.4%±4.6 30.9%
FH slice down the line 3% 22.2%±5.0 25.6%
FH drop shot crosscourt 1% 59.4%±11.1 52.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 4,748 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 46.3%±2.3 52.7%
FH down the line 18% 45.9%±2.8 51.5%
BH crosscourt 13% 42.6%±3.2 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 38.7%±3.2 46.8%
FH through the middle 13% 45.0%±3.3 47.0%
BH down the line 6% 44.5%±4.6 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 69.2%±6.0 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 73.0%±7.3 69.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 4,586 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 33% 43.6%±2.1 46.9%
BH through the middle 22% 41.5%±2.5 43.0%
BH down the line 14% 36.9%±3.1 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 35.7%±3.4 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.3%±4.1 32.6%
BH slice down the line 3% 24.1%±5.3 33.3%
FH inside-out 2% 52.1%±7.1 51.7%
FH inside-in 2% 50.8%±8.4 53.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Hubert Hurkacz's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 1629 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 52% 78% / 73%
Body 5% 5% 63% / 63%
T 48% 43% 80% / 75%

13,575 normal · 401 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 54% 78% / 73%
Body 5% 4% 66% / 63%
T 43% 42% 76% / 72%

11,375 normal · 1,228 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
Wide47% 69.6%±0.9 n=6,623 60% ▲
Body5% 61.8%±3.0 n=690 0% ▼
T48% 68.7%±0.9 n=6,663 40% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.038): serve wide more. Gap 0.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 68.2%±0.9 n=6,686 66% ▲
Body4% 67.2%±3.2 n=563 0% ▼
T42% 67.5%±1.0 n=5,354 34% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.37 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: +0.9±0.9 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. (11,744 repeats, 14,195 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 710 36% −1.4±2.9
1stAd courtT 3,286 27% −1.5±1.3
1stAd courtWide 3,940 27% −0.4±1.2
1stDeuce courtBody 836 37% +0.1±2.7
1stDeuce courtT 3,835 23% −2.3±1.1
1stDeuce courtWide 4,322 27% −0.3±1.1
2ndAd courtBody 1,885 46% −3.4±1.9
2ndAd courtT 887 49% −0.8±2.7
2ndAd courtWide 2,204 47% −0.9±1.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 2,041 47% −2.0±1.8
2ndDeuce courtT 2,090 48% −1.2±1.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 1,094 45% −2.9±2.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.1% · won 79% · +8.4±2.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 55% · −15.8±3.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 52% · −18.5±3.0 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 50% · −20.4±3.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 51% · −19.8±2.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.1% · won 52% · +17.5±3.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 51% · +16.1±3.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 49% · +13.9±3.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 48% · +13.5±3.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 42% · +6.9±2.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 48% · +5.0±3.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 47% · +3.7±2.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 49% · +5.2±3.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.3% · won 48% · +5.0±4.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 47% · +3.7±3.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.3% · won 67% · +21.5±5.0 vs own baseline · −1.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ilya Ivashka (4/7), Grigor Dimitrov (5/8)
  2. Wide serve → FH crosscourt return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 74% · +28.9±6.9 vs own baseline · +9.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → FH crosscourt return, short → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 74% · +28.7±7.0 vs own baseline · +5.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alexander Zverev (7/8), Roberto Bautista Agut (6/6)
  4. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash crosscourt used 0.1% · won 79% · +33.9±7.9 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 69% · +23.3±7.2 vs own baseline · +7.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roberto Bautista Agut (4/6), Novak Djokovic (5/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt + approach used 0.1% · won 71% · +25.9±8.4 vs own baseline · +13.3 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 drop shot to their forehand · rally+5.1161
FH slice to the middle · rally+2.8702
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1+2.7131
FH slice to the middle · return +1+2.5362
Smash to their forehand · rally+2.4328

Most exposed to

BH drop shot to their forehand · serve +1−3.8138
Smash to their backhand · rally−1.9360
FH to the middle · return +1−1.71,038
BH to the middle · serve +1−1.51,856
Smash to the middle · rally−1.3152

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.48, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.29, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.03, Jack Draper +0.91, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.87

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.64, Pedro Martinez +0.51, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.49, Alexander Shevchenko +0.31, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.31

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Daniil Medvedev

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns35%
BH down the line26%
FH down the line35%
Wide serves · deuce47%
1st serve in64%
T serves · ad42%
Forehand share56%
Wide serves · ad53%
T serves · deuce48%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
Points at net13%
Unforced errors / shot10.6%
Point-ending shots23.8%
Backhand slice19%
Run-around forehands17%
Avg rally length3.8
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley3%
Through the middle23%

Plays most like

  1. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Joao Fonseca 2024–2026 plan v
  3. Sebastian Korda 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Ugo Humbert 2019–2026 plan v
  7. Dominic Thiem 2011–2024 plan v
  8. Learner Tien 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. David Nalbandian 2002–2012
  2. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011
  3. Magnus Norman 2000–2001

Charted matches