ATP · Right-handed · 128 charted matches · 1979–1994
Ivan Lendl
Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners
Against an average opponent
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
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 65,832 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Ivan Lendl 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.
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 4,080 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 34% | 50.0%±2.2 | 48.0% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 22% | 50.3%±2.7 | 42.1% |
| BH through the middle | 14% | 40.3%±3.4 | 43.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 12% | 44.6%±3.6 | 35.1% |
| BH down the line | 6% | 47.6%±5.1 | 46.5% |
| FH inside-out | 5% | 57.3%±5.6 | 52.6% |
| BH slice down the line | 4% | 42.9%±6.0 | 35.8% |
| FH inside-in | 2% | 51.5%±8.6 | 54.3% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 3,639 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 30% | 52.2%±2.5 | 47.6% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 20% | 51.5%±3.0 | 42.5% |
| BH through the middle | 15% | 47.0%±3.4 | 43.7% |
| BH slice through the middle | 13% | 45.0%±3.7 | 35.1% |
| BH down the line | 7% | 50.3%±5.1 | 46.4% |
| FH inside-out | 5% | 52.4%±5.5 | 51.8% |
| BH slice down the line | 4% | 48.3%±6.6 | 37.1% |
| FH inside-in | 2% | 59.3%±8.2 | 54.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 2,330 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 17% | 56.8%±4.0 | 52.7% |
| FH through the middle | 16% | 49.2%±4.1 | 47.0% |
| FH down the line | 16% | 56.6%±4.2 | 51.5% |
| BH through the middle | 14% | 46.7%±4.4 | 46.8% |
| BH crosscourt | 12% | 48.4%±4.7 | 49.1% |
| BH slice through the middle | 6% | 48.1%±6.4 | 44.8% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | 48.3%±6.7 | 47.0% |
| BH down the line | 5% | 51.3%±7.3 | 48.3% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 2,179 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 16% | 52.5%±4.2 | 52.7% |
| FH through the middle | 15% | 50.6%±4.4 | 47.4% |
| BH crosscourt | 15% | 47.2%±4.4 | 49.6% |
| FH down the line | 15% | 53.4%±4.5 | 52.0% |
| BH through the middle | 14% | 48.5%±4.6 | 46.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 8% | 48.3%±5.9 | 45.7% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | 45.6%±6.6 | 45.4% |
| BH down the line | 3% | 55.7%±8.4 | 49.5% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Ivan Lendl's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 998 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 46% | 72% / 73% |
| Body | 7% | 5% | 65% / 63% |
| T | 44% | 49% | 77% / 75% |
5,887 normal · 251 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 55% | 57% | 73% / 73% |
| Body | 6% | 6% | 63% / 63% |
| T | 39% | 37% | 73% / 72% |
4,891 normal · 747 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 49% | 64.9%±1.4 n=2,981 | 51% ▲ |
| Body | 7% | 63.7%±3.7 n=419 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 45% | 65.1%±1.5 n=2,738 | 49% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.83).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 55% | 62.8%±1.4 n=3,110 | 48% ▼ |
| Body | 6% | 59.1%±4.2 n=349 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 39% | 63.6%±1.7 n=2,179 | 52% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.20).
Optimal mix: +0.3 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: −0.2±1.5 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. (5,140 repeats, 6,380 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 423 | 39% | +1.9±3.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 867 | 30% | +1.7±2.5 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 2,170 | 31% | +3.3±1.6 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 719 | 38% | +1.7±2.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 1,731 | 32% | +6.8±1.8 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 1,482 | 32% | +5.1±2.0 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 701 | 49% | −0.6±3.0 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 304 | 47% | −2.6±4.5 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 1,365 | 50% | +1.7±2.2 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 887 | 51% | +1.6±2.7 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 995 | 51% | +0.9±2.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 504 | 53% | +4.8±3.6 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Ivan Lendl's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 58% · −8.0±4.8 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 57% · −9.0±4.9 vs own baseline
Return
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.4% · won 52% · +12.9±4.1 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 3.3% · won 51% · +12.0±4.2 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.5% · won 52% · +12.9±4.7 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, short used 3.4% · won 48% · +9.2±4.1 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 2.6% · won 48% · +8.7±4.6 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 1.4% · won 59% · +9.9±5.0 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 56% · +7.0±4.6 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 53% · +4.0±3.9 vs own baseline
- BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 54% · +5.1±5.7 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 52% · +2.7±4.0 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Ivan Lendl wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- T serve → BH slice through the middle return, short → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 68% · +17.1±10.2 vs own baseline · +9.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefan Edberg (6/7), Boris Becker (6/7)
- BH down the line → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 68% · +17.1±10.4 vs own baseline · +28.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mats Wilander (4/6)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 66% · +15.3±10.0 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mats Wilander (7/7)
- FH down the line + approach → BH slice down the line → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 70% · +19.6±11.2 vs own baseline · +18.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mats Wilander (6/6)
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 61% · +10.5±8.9 vs own baseline · +13.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Miloslav Mecir (3/6), Mats Wilander (6/8)
- Wide serve → BH slice through the middle return, short → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 67% · +16.6±11.2 vs own baseline · +9.4 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 slice to the middle · serve +1 | +5.4 | 401 |
| BH slice to their forehand · return +1 | +5.3 | 247 |
| BH slice to the middle · return +1 | +4.6 | 354 |
| BH slice to their forehand · serve +1 | +4.5 | 273 |
| BH slice to their backhand · serve +1 | +4.5 | 576 |
Most exposed to
| BH slice to their backhand · serve +1 | −3.9 | 243 |
| BH slice to their forehand · return | −3.6 | 283 |
| BH slice to the middle · return +1 | −3.3 | 324 |
| BH slice to their backhand · return +1 | −2.9 | 493 |
| FH slice to the middle · return | −2.9 | 216 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Daniel Evans, Grigor Dimitrov, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Lorenzo Musetti, Carlos Alcaraz
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the ATP average, in standard deviations.
| Chipped returns | 34% | |
| Backhand slice | 40% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 49% | |
| Avg rally length | 4.4 | |
| Wide serves · ad | 55% | |
| Points at net | 14% | |
| Serve & volley | 16% | |
| BH down the line | 23% | |
| Run-around forehands | 22% | |
| T serves · ad | 39% | |
| T serves · deuce | 45% | |
| Through the middle | 24% | |
| FH down the line | 29% | |
| Point-ending shots | 20.6% | |
| Drop shots / shot | 0.6% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 7.1% | |
| 1st serve in | 56% | |
| Forehand share | 45% | |
| Deep returns | 9% |
Plays most like
- Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
- Richard Gasquet 2002–2025 plan v
- Alex Corretja 1995–2002 plan v
- Roger Federer 1998–2021 plan v
- Andy Murray 2005–2024 plan v
- Tommy Haas 1996–2017 plan v
- Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005 plan v
- Brad Gilbert 1987–1994 plan v
Closest from another era
- Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011
- Richard Gasquet 2002–2025
- Roger Federer 1998–2021
Charted matches
- Pete Sampras v Ivan Lendl L Australian Open R16 · Hard · 24 Jan 1994
- Pete Sampras v Ivan Lendl L Sydney Outdoor F · Hard · 16 Jan 1994
- Todd Martin v Ivan Lendl Tokyo Indoor F · Hard · 17 Oct 1993
- Andre Agassi v Ivan Lendl L New Haven QF · Hard · 20 Aug 1993
- Ivan Lendl v Michael Stich W Munich F · Clay · 3 May 1993
- Ivan Lendl v Boris Becker US Open R16 · Hard · 8 Sep 1992
- Ivan Lendl v Stefan Edberg L US Open QF · Hard · 3 Sep 1992
- Ivan Lendl v Stefan Edberg L New Haven SF · Hard · 23 Aug 1992
- Pete Sampras v Ivan Lendl L Cincinnati Masters F · Hard · 16 Aug 1992
- Michael Chang v Ivan Lendl W Cincinnati Masters SF · Hard · 15 Aug 1992
- Andre Agassi v Ivan Lendl L Canada Masters F · Hard · 26 Jul 1992
- Ivan Lendl v Wally Masur W Canada Masters SF · Hard · 24 Jul 1992