RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2018–2023

Ilya Ivashka

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.7% ±3.7 raw 58.2% · tour 63.4% · 868 points
Return points won 40.4% ±3.8 raw 37.7% · tour 36.6% · 828 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 −0.11 ±0.12 better than 29% of ATP · raw −0.11
Shot selection +0.61 ±0.15 better than 95% of ATP · raw +0.60
Execution −0.95 ±0.51 better than 26% of ATP · raw −1.08
Points left on the table 2.34 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 80% 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 4,734 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ilya Ivashka 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 · 330 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 43.4%±6.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 41.0%±7.8 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 45.3%±10.8 46.4%
FH inside-out 5% 55.3%±13.8 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 37.6%±14.1 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 38.3%±14.6 42.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 235 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 49.2%±6.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 27% 36.1%±8.6 41.5%
FH down the line 16% 41.3%±10.6 44.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 206 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 22% 43.2%±10.0 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 48.0%±10.7 51.5%
BH through the middle 17% 48.8%±11.2 46.8%
FH through the middle 16% 45.0%±11.3 47.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 53.8%±11.8 49.1%
BH down the line 6% 52.0%±14.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 5% 70.3%±13.7 70.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 203 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 65% 37.7%±6.5 46.9%
FH through the middle 22% 40.4%±10.0 41.4%
FH down the line 13% 39.1%±11.8 44.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Ilya Ivashka's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 99 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 48% 72% / 73%
Body 20% 19% 63% / 63%
T 39% 33% 71% / 75%

426 normal · 27 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 44% 68% / 73%
Body 16% 13% 61% / 63%
T 35% 43% ▲ 66% / 72%

343 normal · 72 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
Wide41% 65.6%±5.3 n=186 54% ▲
Body20% 61.6%±7.2 n=92 7% ▼
T39% 54.5%±5.7 n=175 39%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.034): serve wide more. Gap 5.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 57.6%±5.3 n=201 49%
Body15% 51.0%±8.5 n=64 2% ▼
T36% 55.6%±6.1 n=150 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.39).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.54 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: +6.6±5.7 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. (231 repeats, 619 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 20 40% +3.2±11.4
1stAd courtT 107 26% −2.2±6.2
1stAd courtWide 109 22% −5.5±5.8
1stDeuce courtBody 35 31% −5.9±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 95 22% −3.1±6.1
1stDeuce courtWide 113 30% +3.0±6.3
2ndAd courtBody 49 50% +1.0±9.3
2ndAd courtT 33 55% +5.9±10.3
2ndAd courtWide 81 49% +0.7±7.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 91 51% +2.0±7.5
2ndDeuce courtT 57 60% +10.0±8.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 36 54% +5.6±10.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 3.7% · won 64% · +2.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 61% · −0.8±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 57% · −4.8±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 55% · −6.8±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 3.4% · won 55% · −7.0±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.2% · won 42% · +5.4±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 8.8% · won 41% · +4.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 9.1% · won 38% · +1.7±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 6.7% · won 35% · −2.1±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.6% · won 35% · −2.1±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 50% · +5.7±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 51% · +7.4±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 51% · +7.4±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 50% · +6.4±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 3.9% · won 48% · +4.0±10.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 54% · +7.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (2/6), Guido Andreozzi (5/7)
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +6.4±12.8 vs own baseline · +15.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 50% · +3.9±11.8 vs own baseline · +7.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (3/9), Hubert Hurkacz (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 50% · +3.9±12.9 vs own baseline · +8.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (6/10)
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 49% · +2.3±10.2 vs own baseline · +5.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (3/7), Hubert Hurkacz (6/13)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 48% · +1.9±11.7 vs own baseline · −0.1 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+0.8420
BH to the middle · rally+0.4200
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+0.1120
FH to the middle · return±0.0164
FH to the middle · rally−0.3189

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−2.1406
FH to their backhand · rally−1.9310
FH to the middle · rally−1.6190
FH to the middle · return−1.6181
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.9138

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roberto Carballes Baena, Roberto Bautista Agut, Miomir Kecmanovic, Pedro Martinez, Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.4
Through the middle27%
Forehand share56%
Deep returns28%
Points at net12%
Wide serves · ad48%
Run-around forehands16%
Unforced errors / shot9.4%
Serve & volley3%
Wide serves · deuce41%
1st serve in60%
T serves · ad36%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Backhand slice13%
Point-ending shots20.6%
Chipped returns8%
BH down the line15%
T serves · deuce39%
FH down the line26%

Plays most like

  1. Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  3. Luca Nardi 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Radu Albot 2016–2024 plan v
  5. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  6. Tommy Paul 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Taylor Fritz 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  3. Nicolas Kiefer 1999–2008

Charted matches