RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 47 charted matches · 1989–1999

Jim Courier

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 67.3% ±2.3 raw 65.4% · tour 63.4% · 5,232 points
Return points won 39.7% ±2.5 raw 36.5% · tour 36.6% · 5,242 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 +0.04 ±0.08 better than 69% of ATP · raw +0.04
Shot selection −0.25 ±0.19 better than 28% of ATP · raw −0.25
Execution +0.69 ±0.34 better than 89% of ATP · raw +0.62
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 47 matches
Adaptation speed +0.11 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.06 ±0.57 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,165 shots · better than 80% of ATP
Points left on the table 3.00 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 20% 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 23,916 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jim Courier 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 · 1,369 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 46.9%±3.9 47.6%
FH inside-out 16% 52.4%±5.2 51.8%
BH through the middle 16% 45.2%±5.3 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 45.0%±6.5 42.5%
FH inside-in 6% 53.7%±8.0 54.7%
BH down the line 6% 37.8%±7.8 46.4%
FH through the middle 5% 42.4%±8.5 45.2%
BH slice through the middle 5% 40.3%±8.6 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 742 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 30% 55.8%±5.3 51.5%
FH crosscourt 25% 56.3%±5.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 50.9%±6.8 47.0%
BH crosscourt 7% 50.4%±9.6 49.1%
BH through the middle 6% 52.9%±10.2 46.8%
FH down the line + approach 5% 74.3%±9.4 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 3% 73.1%±11.4 69.9%
BH slice through the middle 2% 49.9%±14.1 44.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 729 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 51.5%±5.0 48.0%
FH inside-out 14% 54.2%±7.5 52.6%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 35.3%±7.6 42.1%
BH through the middle 11% 40.4%±8.0 43.8%
BH slice through the middle 8% 35.0%±8.8 35.1%
FH inside-in 8% 56.4%±9.4 54.3%
BH down the line 7% 56.1%±9.8 46.5%
BH slice down the line 3% 35.3%±12.0 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 648 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 52.3%±4.4 46.6%
FH through the middle 22% 47.0%±6.5 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 48.7%±6.6 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 3% 22.8%±11.1 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 2% 76.1%±12.0 69.3%
FH slice down the line 2% 26.2%±13.0 25.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Jim Courier's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 375 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 52% 72% / 73%
Body 11% 14% 65% / 63%
T 44% 34% ▼ 77% / 75%

2,564 normal · 94 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 42% 70% / 73%
Body 10% 10% 62% / 63%
T 42% 48% 75% / 72%

2,152 normal · 281 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% 66.4%±2.2 n=1,216 59% ▲
Body11% 62.0%±4.5 n=287 0% ▼
T43% 65.2%±2.3 n=1,155 41% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.28).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 64.3%±2.3 n=1,152 44% ▼
Body10% 60.0%±5.0 n=233 0% ▼
T43% 66.1%±2.4 n=1,048 56% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.13).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.65 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±1.9 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. (2,046 repeats, 2,951 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 158 38% +1.4±5.8
1stAd courtT 471 25% −2.8±3.2
1stAd courtWide 791 28% +1.2±2.6
1stDeuce courtBody 255 39% +2.2±4.8
1stDeuce courtT 657 27% +2.2±2.8
1stDeuce courtWide 648 25% −1.9±2.7
2ndAd courtBody 241 52% +2.2±5.0
2ndAd courtT 172 37% −12.3±5.6
2ndAd courtWide 596 49% +1.1±3.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 328 47% −1.6±4.3
2ndDeuce courtT 476 57% +7.0±3.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 285 41% −7.0±4.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 64% · −5.1±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 63% · −5.5±6.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 61% · −8.1±6.7 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 60% · −8.6±6.6 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.8% · won 53% · −15.9±6.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.4% · won 50% · +11.9±4.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 4.9% · won 49% · +10.9±5.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.1% · won 51% · +12.9±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.2% · won 47% · +8.8±6.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.1% · won 46% · +7.8±6.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 58% · +9.9±7.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 57% · +8.2±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 56% · +8.0±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 1.7% · won 56% · +7.1±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH inside-in used 1.1% · won 57% · +8.9±9.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Jim Courier 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 down the line used 0.4% · won 67% · +16.0±9.7 vs own baseline · +19.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pete Sampras (11/16), Andre Agassi (6/6)
  2. FH down the line + approach → BH crosscourt → BH volley down the line used 0.2% · won 67% · +16.7±11.3 vs own baseline · +29.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pete Sampras (5/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 61% · +10.1±9.0 vs own baseline · +20.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pete Sampras (5/12), Michael Stich (5/7)
  4. T serve → BH slice through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 64% · +13.4±11.1 vs own baseline · +17.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pete Sampras (11/14)
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 62% · +11.5±10.4 vs own baseline · +17.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Thomas Muster (5/9), Goran Ivanisevic (5/8)
  6. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 60% · +9.4±9.9 vs own baseline · +10.0 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

BH slice to their forehand · rally+4.6149
BH slice to their backhand · serve +1+4.2124
BH to their backhand · return+3.9969
BH to their forehand · serve +1+3.1171
BH slice to the middle · rally+2.5214

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · serve +1−5.8171
FH volley to their forehand · serve +1−3.9164
T 2nd serve · ad court−3.7172
BH slice to their backhand · return +1−2.9230
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1−2.7316

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jack Draper, Jannik Sinner, Miomir Kecmanovic, Alexander Zverev, Kei Nishikori

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands40%
Forehand share59%
T serves · ad43%
Backhand slice27%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Points at net13%
Point-ending shots24.8%
BH down the line20%
1st serve in61%
Serve & volley7%
T serves · deuce43%
FH down the line29%
Wide serves · ad47%
Avg rally length3.7
Chipped returns8%
Drop shots / shot0.6%
Unforced errors / shot8.3%
Through the middle21%
Deep returns11%

Plays most like

  1. Andy Roddick 2001–2012 plan v
  2. James Blake 2002–2011 plan v
  3. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  4. Carlos Moya 1997–2007 plan v
  5. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005 plan v
  6. Magnus Norman 2000–2001 plan v
  7. Kyle Edmund 2016–2023 plan v
  8. Aleksandar Vukic 2019–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026
  2. Kyle Edmund 2016–2023
  3. Aleksandar Vukic 2019–2025

Charted matches