RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2014–2019

Jared Donaldson

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.9% ±3.6 raw 64.9% · tour 63.4% · 556 points
Return points won 38.1% ±3.8 raw 39.0% · tour 36.6% · 539 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 +0.02 ±0.10 better than 63% of ATP · raw +0.03
Shot selection −0.01 ±0.23 better than 52% of ATP · raw ±0.00
Execution +1.08 ±0.69 better than 97% of ATP · raw +1.37

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 2,790 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jared Donaldson 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 · 139 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 45.6%±9.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 30% 51.2%±10.4 43.7%
BH down the line 17% 55.2%±12.3 46.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 129 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 55.9%±10.5 52.7%
FH down the line 29% 54.9%±10.8 51.5%
FH through the middle 17% 51.0%±12.7 47.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 57.0%±14.2 49.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 128 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 37.4%±8.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 28% 48.7%±11.0 41.5%
FH down the line 24% 47.0%±11.5 44.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 95 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 60% 50.1%±9.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 46.0%±12.5 43.8%
BH down the line 16% 43.7%±13.8 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 29% ▼ 80% / 73%
Body 6% 0% 65% / 63%
T 55% 71% ▲ 75% / 75%

282 normal · 7 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 52% 70% / 73%
Body 6% 7% 61% / 63%
T 43% 41% 67% / 72%

240 normal · 27 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
Wide38% 69.1%±6.4 n=111 31% ▼
Body6% 69.8%±11.0 n=17 0% ▼
T56% 71.9%±5.4 n=161 69% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.81).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide51% 61.5%±6.2 n=137 64% ▲
Body6% 56.7%±12.0 n=16 0% ▼
T43% 56.4%±6.8 n=114 36% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.52).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.41 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: −4.4±9.7 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. (169 repeats, 369 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 14 37% −0.4±11.9
1stAd courtT 73 33% +5.4±7.6
1stAd courtWide 81 26% −1.0±6.9
1stDeuce courtBody 11 39% +2.3±12.5
1stDeuce courtT 70 30% +4.5±7.5
1stDeuce courtWide 98 27% −0.5±6.4
2ndAd courtBody 28 55% +5.5±10.7
2ndAd courtT 31 49% −0.5±10.5
2ndAd courtWide 29 55% +6.7±10.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 32 56% +7.0±10.4
2ndDeuce courtT 52 47% −2.2±9.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 18 51% +2.8±11.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 9.5% · won 74% · −0.2±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 6.4% · won 68% · −5.7±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.0% · won 53% · +1.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 52% · +0.5±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.3% · won 49% · −2.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.5% · won 48% · −3.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.8% · won 47% · −4.2±11.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Jared Donaldson 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 crosscourt used 1.2% · won 59% · +7.8±12.5 vs own baseline · +16.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 55% · +3.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +7.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniel Nguyen (3/6)
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 52% · +0.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +6.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tennys Sandgren (4/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 52% · +0.4±11.9 vs own baseline · +3.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Luca Vanni (3/7)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 51% · −0.6±12.6 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Darian King (4/7)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 51% · −0.7±11.3 vs own baseline · +3.2 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+0.7161
FH to their forehand · rally+0.1211
BH to their backhand · rally±0.0174
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.5137
FH to their backhand · rally−1.8171

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · deuce court−3.0133
FH to their backhand · rally−2.0169
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.8134
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.4128
FH to their forehand · rally+3.5198

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Reilly Opelka, Nick Kyrgios, Quentin Halys, Nicolas Jarry

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns44%
T serves · deuce56%
Forehand share57%
FH down the line33%
T serves · ad43%
Unforced errors / shot10.4%
Wide serves · ad51%
Avg rally length4.0
BH down the line21%
Point-ending shots22.7%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Serve & volley0%
Through the middle22%
Run-around forehands13%
Backhand slice10%
Wide serves · deuce38%
Chipped returns6%
Points at net6%
1st serve in52%

Plays most like

  1. Nicolas Almagro 2006–2019 plan v
  2. David Goffin 2013–2025 plan v
  3. Jack Draper 2022–2026 plan v
  4. Marat Safin 1998–2009 plan v
  5. Sebastian Ofner 2022–2025 plan v
  6. Peter Gojowczyk 2014–2022 plan v
  7. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  8. Sebastian Korda 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001
  2. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002
  3. Thomas Enqvist 1993–2001

Charted matches