RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2003–2011

Ivan Ljubicic

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 67.5% ±3.3 raw 65.8% · tour 63.4% · 1,516 points
Return points won 36.8% ±3.6 raw 30.2% · tour 36.6% · 1,447 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 −0.05 ±0.12 better than 44% of ATP · raw −0.06
Shot selection −0.08 ±0.25 better than 43% of ATP · raw −0.10
Execution −0.17 ±0.61 better than 59% of ATP · raw −0.49
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed +0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.68 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 41% 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 7,195 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Ivan Ljubicic 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 · 360 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 40.3%±6.6 47.6%
BH slice crosscourt 19% 37.2%±8.4 42.5%
BH through the middle 16% 36.4%±8.9 43.7%
BH down the line 15% 45.0%±9.5 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 40.8%±11.0 35.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 296 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 38.8%±6.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 29% 29.8%±7.3 41.5%
FH down the line 24% 46.6%±8.6 44.7%
FH down the line + approach 4% 60.8%±14.4 69.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 269 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 22% 49.4%±9.3 52.7%
BH crosscourt 18% 41.8%±9.8 49.1%
FH through the middle 17% 42.2%±10.1 47.0%
FH down the line 16% 36.0%±10.0 51.5%
BH through the middle 13% 32.2%±10.5 46.8%
BH down the line 9% 52.7%±12.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 4% 68.1%±13.8 70.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 242 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 31% 45.7%±8.4 46.9%
BH slice crosscourt 25% 39.7%±8.9 40.9%
BH through the middle 17% 42.0%±10.4 43.0%
BH down the line 14% 44.1%±11.1 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 13% 38.3%±11.2 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +13 How much less varied Ivan Ljubicic's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 117 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 50% 71% / 73%
Body 8% 4% 66% / 63%
T 48% 46% 84% / 75%

766 normal · 26 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 63% ▲ 79% / 73%
Body 8% 3% 58% / 63%
T 39% 34% 77% / 72%

626 normal · 91 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
Wide45% 63.1%±4.1 n=353 39% ▼
Body7% 63.9%±8.4 n=59 0% ▼
T48% 70.1%±3.7 n=380 61% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 63.4%±3.9 n=387 48% ▼
Body7% 60.0%±8.9 n=52 0% ▼
T39% 68.1%±4.4 n=278 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.73 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: +5.4±4.3 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. (662 repeats, 817 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 33 32% −5.1±9.7
1stAd courtT 155 23% −5.1±5.1
1stAd courtWide 244 21% −6.4±4.0
1stDeuce courtBody 66 35% −1.3±8.0
1stDeuce courtT 207 20% −5.0±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 204 27% +0.2±4.8
2ndAd courtBody 69 41% −8.2±8.1
2ndAd courtT 38 41% −8.4±9.8
2ndAd courtWide 146 44% −4.3±6.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 116 44% −4.7±6.8
2ndDeuce courtT 105 42% −7.5±7.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 55 51% +3.0±8.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 66% · −4.8±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 65% · −5.9±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 63% · −7.3±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 60% · −11.0±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · −12.1±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.4% · won 42% · +10.6±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 44% · +12.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 39% · +7.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.7% · won 37% · +5.6±8.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 38% · +6.6±10.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.5% · won 47% · +9.1±9.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 42% · +4.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 45% · +6.9±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 41% · +3.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 41% · +2.7±10.0 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 Ljubicic 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 0.4% · won 51% · +9.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +7.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 46% · +3.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (4/9), Marcos Baghdatis (3/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 45% · +2.4±9.5 vs own baseline · −0.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tomas Berdych (1/6), Marcos Baghdatis (4/11)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.7% · won 45% · +2.9±11.6 vs own baseline · +0.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by David Nalbandian (3/7), Roger Federer (8/15)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 45% · +3.2±12.5 vs own baseline · +1.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (3/9)
  6. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 42% · −0.6±11.8 vs own baseline · −5.0 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

T 1st serve · deuce court+2.3380
BH slice to their backhand · rally+1.6154
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.5195
T 1st serve · ad court+1.4278
T 2nd serve · deuce court+0.8139

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−4.7149
FH to their backhand · rally−2.8354
BH slice to the middle · return−1.6147
FH to their forehand · rally−1.0421
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.0216

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Chipped returns24%
BH down the line24%
Wide serves · ad54%
Unforced errors / shot11.0%
T serves · deuce48%
Backhand slice26%
Points at net14%
Point-ending shots25.0%
FH down the line31%
Wide serves · deuce45%
Through the middle25%
T serves · ad39%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Serve & volley3%
Avg rally length3.8
1st serve in59%
Forehand share49%
Deep returns19%
Run-around forehands8%

Plays most like

  1. David Nalbandian 2002–2012 plan v
  2. Richard Gasquet 2002–2025 plan v
  3. Tommy Haas 1996–2017 plan v
  4. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006 plan v
  5. Roger Federer 1998–2021 plan v
  6. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002 plan v
  7. Benjamin Bonzi 2021–2025 plan v
  8. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Benjamin Bonzi 2021–2025
  2. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026
  3. Laslo Djere 2018–2026

Charted matches