RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 19 charted matches · 2014–2024

John Millman

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.8% ±3.0 raw 63.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,816 points
Return points won 38.7% ±3.2 raw 36.7% · tour 36.6% · 1,764 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 +0.16 ±0.09 better than 89% of ATP · raw +0.16
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.11 better than 54% of ATP · raw +0.03
Execution +0.34 ±0.65 better than 80% of ATP · raw +0.39
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 19 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.26 ±0.52 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,019 shots · better than 44% of ATP
Points left on the table 1.98 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 99% 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 10,111 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points John Millman 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 · 689 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 54% 49.6%±4.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 44.6%±5.8 43.7%
BH down the line 8% 47.6%±9.7 46.4%
FH inside-in 5% 51.8%±11.4 54.7%
FH inside-out 3% 56.7%±12.4 51.8%
FH through the middle 2% 43.9%±14.4 45.2%
BH slice through the middle 2% 32.4%±13.8 35.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 624 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 59% 45.4%±4.1 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 34.0%±6.3 43.8%
BH down the line 9% 41.2%±9.3 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 35.3%±12.8 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 3% 25.1%±11.9 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 553 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 54.0%±6.0 52.7%
BH through the middle 20% 44.6%±7.1 46.8%
FH through the middle 16% 54.5%±7.8 47.0%
FH down the line 16% 50.7%±8.0 51.5%
BH crosscourt 14% 39.2%±8.1 49.1%
BH down the line 3% 53.1%±13.5 48.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 518 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 65% 40.3%±4.3 46.9%
FH through the middle 18% 36.8%±7.4 41.4%
FH down the line 14% 39.1%±8.4 44.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied John Millman's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 152 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 47% 68% / 73%
Body 10% 13% 61% / 63%
T 42% 40% 75% / 75%

913 normal · 30 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 57% ▲ 72% / 73%
Body 8% 8% 70% / 63%
T 46% 34% ▼ 64% / 72%

751 normal · 122 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
Wide49% 63.7%±3.6 n=458 45% ▼
Body10% 61.7%±7.2 n=93 0% ▼
T42% 64.7%±3.8 n=392 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.77).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 64.4%±3.7 n=417 61% ▲
Body8% 66.3%±7.7 n=72 0% ▼
T44% 60.6%±3.9 n=384 39% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.33).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.39 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: +2.9±4.0 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. (659 repeats, 1,119 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 61 39% +1.6±8.4
1stAd courtT 208 24% −4.3±4.5
1stAd courtWide 242 27% ±0.0±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 58 36% −0.3±8.4
1stDeuce courtT 252 28% +2.8±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 261 24% −3.1±4.1
2ndAd courtBody 104 51% +2.0±7.1
2ndAd courtT 42 50% +0.4±9.7
2ndAd courtWide 184 52% +3.3±5.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 115 48% −0.9±6.8
2ndDeuce courtT 161 53% +3.7±5.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 75 53% +4.7±8.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 67% · +1.3±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 62% · −2.8±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 61% · −4.4±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 58% · −7.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 58% · −7.3±9.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 5.0% · won 53% · +11.2±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.8% · won 48% · +6.6±8.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 49% · +6.9±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.5% · won 49% · +7.5±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 48% · +6.1±10.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.6% · won 51% · +4.7±5.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.2% · won 50% · +3.6±5.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 51% · +4.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 8.8% · won 49% · +3.0±4.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.9% · won 49% · +2.8±6.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often John Millman 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 0.9% · won 59% · +10.9±9.2 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (8/14), Aljaz Bedene (6/8)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 57% · +8.1±8.5 vs own baseline · +6.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (2/8), Emilio Nava (2/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +10.9±12.2 vs own baseline · +20.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Feliciano Lopez (7/10)
  4. BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 60% · +11.8±12.7 vs own baseline · +31.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 55% · +6.4±9.6 vs own baseline · +11.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (4/10), Aljaz Bedene (9/10)
  6. FH crosscourt → BH slice down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.9±12.4 vs own baseline · +19.7 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 forehand · rally+2.1927
Body 2nd serve · ad court+2.1137
FH to the middle · return+1.6294
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.6120
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.3154

Most exposed to

BH slice to the middle · rally−2.9130
BH to the middle · return +1−2.6137
FH to the middle · rally−2.2431
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.0129
BH slice to the middle · return−1.9122

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.21, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.19, Pedro Martinez +1.87, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.86, Jack Draper +1.81

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.91, Pedro Martinez +1.76, Fabian Marozsan +1.60, Alexander Shevchenko +1.59, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.58

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Rafael Nadal, Christopher Oconnell, Maxime Cressy, Andy Murray, Corentin Moutet

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.9
Wide serves · deuce49%
T serves · ad44%
1st serve in63%
Deep returns29%
Through the middle25%
Wide serves · ad48%
Serve & volley0%
T serves · deuce42%
Chipped returns8%
Forehand share49%
Run-around forehands9%
Unforced errors / shot7.6%
Drop shots / shot0.2%
BH down the line14%
Backhand slice5%
Points at net5%
Point-ending shots16.8%
FH down the line20%

Plays most like

  1. Gilles Simon 2008–2022 plan v
  2. Daniil Medvedev 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Taylor Fritz 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Jenson Brooksby 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Ilya Ivashka 2018–2023 plan v
  7. Hyeon Chung 2015–2019 plan v
  8. Adrian Mannarino 2012–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Aaron Krickstein 1989–1995
  2. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  3. Michael Chang 1989–1998

Charted matches