RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 29 charted matches · 2022–2026

Jack Draper

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 67.4% ±2.5 raw 64.6% · tour 63.4% · 2,294 points
Return points won 40.2% ±2.8 raw 37.1% · tour 36.6% · 2,319 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 +0.10 ±0.07 better than 81% of ATP · raw +0.09
Shot selection +0.26 ±0.13 better than 77% of ATP · raw +0.26
Execution +1.21 ±0.65 better than 98% of ATP · raw +1.08
Tactical adaptability +0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 29 matches
Adaptation speed +0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.75 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 35% 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 11,799 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jack Draper 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 · 880 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 47.8%±4.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 47.0%±5.1 43.7%
BH down the line 15% 46.5%±6.7 46.4%
FH inside-in 6% 56.7%±9.5 54.7%
FH inside-out 4% 49.8%±11.3 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 34.1%±11.4 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 34.3%±12.1 37.1%
BH drop shot crosscourt 2% 42.0%±13.9 46.4%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 657 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 45% 47.1%±4.6 46.6%
FH down the line 23% 48.5%±6.3 44.7%
FH through the middle 17% 44.9%±7.1 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 4% 21.5%±10.0 24.5%
BH inside-out 3% 49.0%±12.8 45.4%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 38.3%±13.1 30.9%
BH inside-in 3% 49.6%±13.5 46.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 478 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 47.6%±5.2 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 38.3%±6.9 43.8%
BH down the line 16% 46.7%±8.3 46.5%
FH inside-out 4% 50.1%±13.5 52.6%
FH inside-in 3% 46.6%±14.1 54.3%
BH slice down the line 2% 42.4%±14.6 35.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 458 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 22% 55.5%±7.5 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 56.9%±7.7 51.5%
BH crosscourt 16% 50.4%±8.6 49.1%
BH through the middle 14% 52.7%±8.9 46.8%
FH through the middle 12% 53.2%±9.4 47.0%
BH down the line 7% 50.3%±11.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 74.6%±12.1 70.5%
BH slice down the line 2% 45.5%±14.7 45.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Jack Draper's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 167 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 33% 71% / 73%
Body 5% 6% 60% / 63%
T 54% 61% 73% / 75%

1,175 normal · 33 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 54% 76% / 73%
Body 6% 4% 65% / 63%
T 43% 42% 73% / 72%

952 normal · 134 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% 63.9%±3.5 n=494 33% ▼
Body5% 61.6%±8.6 n=57 0% ▼
T54% 63.9%±3.0 n=657 67% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.93).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide51% 68.2%±3.2 n=551 64% ▲
Body6% 61.6%±8.2 n=65 0% ▼
T43% 63.3%±3.5 n=470 36% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.13).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.42 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: +2.6±3.7 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. (912 repeats, 1,324 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 50 34% −3.1±8.7
1stAd courtT 314 29% +1.2±4.0
1stAd courtWide 324 25% −1.8±3.8
1stDeuce courtBody 46 38% +1.5±9.2
1stDeuce courtT 305 29% +3.4±4.1
1stDeuce courtWide 405 28% +0.9±3.5
2ndAd courtBody 98 58% +9.1±7.2
2ndAd courtT 202 54% +4.5±5.4
2ndAd courtWide 117 54% +5.7±6.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 85 55% +5.5±7.6
2ndDeuce courtT 114 46% −3.2±6.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 259 45% −2.9±4.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 63% · −6.7±7.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 58% · −11.4±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 56% · −12.9±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 52% · −17.1±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 55% · −14.6±7.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.4% · won 54% · +13.1±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 53% · +11.7±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 50% · +8.8±8.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 52% · +11.0±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.1% · won 50% · +8.8±9.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.9% · won 50% · +3.6±6.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 54% · +7.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 52% · +4.8±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 51% · +3.9±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 52% · +4.9±10.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.0% · won 57% · +8.2±9.1 vs own baseline · +7.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Carlos Alcaraz (4/8), Hubert Hurkacz (6/11)
  2. BH down the line → BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +7.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +12.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (7/9)
  3. BH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 57% · +8.0±12.0 vs own baseline · +18.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Casper Ruud (5/7)
  4. BH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.3% · won 56% · +6.6±12.9 vs own baseline · +26.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 53% · +3.8±10.5 vs own baseline · +2.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (4/7)
  6. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 53% · +4.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +5.7 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 backhand · return +1+4.2232
BH to their backhand · serve +1+4.0121
BH to their forehand · serve +1+3.1180
BH to their forehand · rally+3.0786
BH to the middle · return +1+2.8167

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return +1−2.2344
BH to their forehand · serve +1−2.1138
FH to their backhand · return−2.0205
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.0547
FH to their backhand · rally−1.91,059

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.51, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.97, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.87, Pedro Martinez +1.82, Casper Ruud +1.79

Favourable matchups

Pedro Martinez +2.72, Alexander Shevchenko +2.65, Fabian Marozsan +2.63, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.63, Cameron Norrie +2.50

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Rafael Nadal, Casper Ruud, Pablo Carreno Busta, Robin Haase

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce54%
Drop shots / shot2.7%
Deep returns32%
FH down the line34%
T serves · ad43%
Avg rally length4.1
Wide serves · ad51%
BH down the line21%
Forehand share53%
Serve & volley4%
1st serve in60%
Through the middle23%
Run-around forehands15%
Wide serves · deuce41%
Points at net8%
Point-ending shots20.2%
Chipped returns8%
Backhand slice9%
Unforced errors / shot7.5%

Plays most like

  1. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  2. David Goffin 2013–2025 plan v
  3. Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
  4. Marcos Baghdatis 2004–2019 plan v
  5. Nicolas Almagro 2006–2019 plan v
  6. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  7. Arthur Cazaux 2020–2025 plan v
  8. Learner Tien 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marat Safin 1998–2009
  2. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014
  3. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009

Charted matches