RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 298 charted matches · 2013–2026

Jannik Sinner

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 69.4% ±2.0 raw 68.1% · tour 63.4% · 23,061 points
Return points won 42.8% ±2.3 raw 40.7% · tour 36.6% · 24,609 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 −0.07 ±0.02 better than 40% of ATP · raw −0.07
Shot selection +0.50 ±0.04 better than 93% of ATP · raw +0.50
Execution +0.25 ±0.16 better than 78% of ATP · raw +0.28
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 293 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.44 ±0.30 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 16,092 shots · better than 17% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.38 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 75% 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 124,676 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jannik Sinner 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 · 8,495 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 51.4%±1.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 48.2%±1.6 43.7%
BH down the line 10% 51.5%±2.7 46.4%
FH inside-out 4% 56.9%±4.5 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 2% 27.5%±5.0 35.1%
FH inside-in 2% 64.2%±6.1 54.7%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 49.4%±6.6 42.5%
FH through the middle 1% 52.4%±8.0 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 7,077 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 54.9%±2.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 49.4%±2.3 47.0%
FH down the line 17% 55.9%±2.3 51.5%
BH through the middle 15% 52.1%±2.5 46.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 52.3%±2.6 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 48.4%±4.3 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 78.4%±5.4 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 75.4%±6.2 69.9%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 5,602 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 50.2%±1.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 30% 45.8%±2.0 41.5%
FH down the line 17% 49.0%±2.6 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 4% 27.3%±5.0 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 2% 28.5%±6.8 30.9%
FH down the line + approach 2% 77.4%±6.6 69.3%
FH slice down the line 1% 32.6%±9.1 25.6%
FH drop shot crosscourt 1% 57.3%±11.7 52.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 5,137 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 51.4%±1.7 48.0%
BH through the middle 27% 48.5%±2.2 43.8%
BH down the line 14% 52.9%±3.0 46.5%
FH inside-out 3% 57.7%±6.1 52.6%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 42.0%±6.8 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 2% 28.6%±6.6 35.1%
FH inside-in 2% 60.7%±7.2 54.3%
FH through the middle 1% 53.4%±11.5 46.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Jannik Sinner's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 1521 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 44% 78% / 73%
Body 11% 9% 67% / 63%
T 43% 47% 78% / 75%

11,725 normal · 356 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 58% 56% 76% / 73%
Body 8% 6% 68% / 63%
T 34% 37% 76% / 72%

9,774 normal · 1,165 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
Wide46% 69.3%±1.0 n=5,536 59% ▲
Body11% 66.1%±2.1 n=1,304 0% ▼
T43% 68.5%±1.1 n=5,241 41% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide58% 67.5%±1.0 n=6,333 52% ▼
Body7% 64.8%±2.7 n=810 0% ▼
T35% 68.3%±1.2 n=3,796 48% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.49 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: +1.6±1.0 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. (9,504 repeats, 12,922 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 789 41% +3.6±2.8
1stAd courtT 2,714 34% +5.9±1.5
1stAd courtWide 3,688 31% +3.4±1.2
1stDeuce courtBody 947 42% +5.0±2.6
1stDeuce courtT 3,211 28% +2.6±1.3
1stDeuce courtWide 4,028 32% +4.9±1.2
2ndAd courtBody 1,712 56% +6.9±2.0
2ndAd courtT 730 54% +4.6±3.0
2ndAd courtWide 2,115 53% +4.8±1.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 1,942 56% +7.5±1.8
2ndDeuce courtT 1,660 55% +5.3±2.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 1,013 52% +3.9±2.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 69% · −1.2±3.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 64% · −6.4±3.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 63% · −6.9±3.5 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 62% · −8.0±3.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 62% · −8.6±3.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 58% · +15.1±3.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 57% · +14.9±3.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 54% · +11.3±2.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.6% · won 52% · +9.7±2.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 55% · +12.7±3.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 58% · +6.2±3.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 55% · +3.4±2.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 1.2% · won 57% · +5.3±4.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 55% · +3.2±2.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.8% · won 55% · +3.6±3.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 75% · +22.8±6.4 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (7/10)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 71% · +18.1±6.8 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Carlos Alcaraz (6/10), Daniil Medvedev (4/6)
  3. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash crosscourt used 0.1% · won 79% · +26.8±8.1 vs own baseline · +5.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Carlos Alcaraz (5/6)
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 64% · +11.8±5.1 vs own baseline · +7.0 vs tour on the same sequence · −30.5 v lefties Disrupted by Francisco Cerundolo (1/6), Ben Shelton (3/9)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt + approach used 0.1% · won 72% · +19.7±7.9 vs own baseline · +10.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marton Fucsovics (4/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 73% · +20.2±8.6 vs own baseline · +9.0 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

FH volley to their forehand · serve +1+3.7133
BH to their forehand · serve +1+2.9682
BH to their forehand · return +1+2.31,072
BH to their forehand · return+2.01,311
Smash to their forehand · rally+2.0252

Most exposed to

Smash to their backhand · rally−3.0166
BH volley to the middle · rally−1.8212
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1−1.7131
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1−1.7158
FH volley to their forehand · rally−1.2498

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +0.55, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.55, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.31, Casper Ruud +0.29, Pedro Martinez +0.26

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.85, Fabian Marozsan +1.82, Pedro Martinez +1.79, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.65, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.63

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Alexander Zverev, Rafael Nadal, Andrey Rublev, Casper Ruud, Hubert Hurkacz

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle30%
Wide serves · ad58%
Avg rally length4.2
Wide serves · deuce46%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Forehand share53%
Run-around forehands18%
1st serve in61%
Point-ending shots22.9%
Deep returns25%
T serves · deuce43%
Unforced errors / shot9.3%
Serve & volley2%
Points at net9%
T serves · ad35%
BH down the line16%
Chipped returns6%
Backhand slice7%
FH down the line26%

Plays most like

  1. Ilya Ivashka 2018–2023 plan v
  2. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  3. Taylor Fritz 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Tennys Sandgren 2014–2021 plan v
  6. Luca Nardi 2022–2025 plan v
  7. Cristian Garin 2018–2025 plan v
  8. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009
  2. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  3. Andrei Medvedev 1992–2000

Charted matches