RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 23 charted matches · 2022–2026

Learner Tien

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.5% ±3.3 raw 62.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,959 points
Return points won 39.4% ±3.4 raw 38.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,992 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 ±0.09 better than 74% of ATP · raw +0.07
Shot selection −0.29 ±0.17 better than 24% of ATP · raw −0.29
Execution +0.47 ±0.60 better than 83% of ATP · raw +0.54
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.54 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 56% 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 11,114 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Learner Tien 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 · 778 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 48.2%±4.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 42.4%±5.7 43.7%
BH down the line 17% 54.5%±6.7 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 41.2%±9.4 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 39.7%±11.1 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 35.8%±12.0 37.1%
FH inside-out 2% 52.5%±13.9 51.8%
FH inside-in 2% 65.4%±13.8 54.7%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 581 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 53% 48.3%±4.5 46.6%
FH through the middle 22% 44.1%±6.7 41.5%
FH down the line 15% 45.3%±7.9 44.7%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 32.4%±10.6 30.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 22.6%±11.6 24.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 555 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 51.7%±6.6 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 57.2%±6.8 51.5%
BH through the middle 15% 47.4%±8.1 46.8%
FH through the middle 13% 46.7%±8.5 47.0%
BH down the line 12% 62.7%±8.7 48.3%
BH crosscourt 11% 49.1%±9.3 49.1%
BH slice through the middle 2% 59.2%±14.3 44.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 553 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 57.5%±5.5 48.0%
BH down the line 21% 52.5%±7.1 46.5%
BH through the middle 17% 52.5%±7.8 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 53.6%±8.5 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 5% 37.0%±11.7 35.1%
BH slice down the line 5% 35.9%±11.8 35.8%
FH inside-out 2% 61.8%±14.6 52.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Learner Tien's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 176 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 37% 69% / 73%
Body 9% 16% 65% / 63%
T 47% 47% 62% / 75%

990 normal · 38 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 48% 70% / 73%
Body 9% 8% 71% / 63%
T 39% 44% 78% / 72%

787 normal · 138 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
Wide44% 59.7%±3.7 n=451 57% ▲
Body9% 59.1%±7.4 n=91 9%
T47% 56.5%±3.6 n=486 34% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.52).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide51% 67.3%±3.4 n=474 64% ▲
Body9% 66.9%±7.2 n=85 0% ▼
T40% 66.5%±3.9 n=366 36% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.97).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.40 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: −1.0±3.0 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. (727 repeats, 1,180 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 66 42% +4.8±8.3
1stAd courtT 249 33% +5.4±4.6
1stAd courtWide 280 26% −1.0±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 69 45% +8.8±8.2
1stDeuce courtT 290 24% −1.2±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 334 31% +3.9±4.0
2ndAd courtBody 119 56% +6.9±6.7
2ndAd courtT 122 52% +3.2±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 111 50% +1.6±6.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 119 50% +1.1±6.7
2ndDeuce courtT 77 51% +1.6±7.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 156 51% +3.2±6.0

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Learner Tien'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 8.1% · won 65% · −0.7±5.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.1% · won 64% · −1.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 64% · −2.0±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 62% · −4.2±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 3.2% · won 61% · −4.7±8.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 59% · +14.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.8% · won 53% · +9.0±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.3% · won 54% · +9.8±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 55% · +11.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.2% · won 54% · +9.9±9.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH down the line used 1.6% · won 61% · +9.6±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 56% · +4.3±6.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 57% · +5.1±9.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 56% · +4.1±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 57% · +5.2±10.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, short → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 62% · +9.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +21.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 61% · +8.9±12.5 vs own baseline · +24.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 58% · +5.7±10.1 vs own baseline · +9.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Arthur Fils (4/7), Daniil Medvedev (6/9)
  4. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH down the line used 0.3% · won 60% · +7.9±12.7 vs own baseline · +25.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH slice crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +7.0±12.2 vs own baseline · +19.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (9/12)
  6. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +6.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +20.9 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 to the middle · serve +1+4.3126
BH to their forehand · rally+3.7676
BH slice to their forehand · rally+3.1155
BH to their forehand · return+2.7235
BH to their forehand · return +1+2.6175

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−5.2143
BH to their forehand · return−3.2283
BH to the middle · return−2.7515
BH to their forehand · return +1−2.3143
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−1.9156

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.91, Jack Draper +1.56, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.13, Yoshihito Nishioka +1.08, Alex Molcan +1.05

Favourable matchups

Pedro Martinez +2.09, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.02, Alexander Shevchenko +2.02, Fabian Marozsan +1.99, Adrian Mannarino +1.92

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Miomir Kecmanovic, Andy Murray, Joao Fonseca, Bernard Tomic, Albert Ramos

Tactical fingerprint

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

BH down the line27%
Avg rally length4.6
Deep returns32%
1st serve in64%
Chipped returns19%
T serves · deuce47%
Forehand share55%
Wide serves · ad51%
T serves · ad40%
Wide serves · deuce44%
FH down the line31%
Backhand slice18%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Through the middle23%
Serve & volley1%
Unforced errors / shot8.8%
Point-ending shots20.8%
Run-around forehands11%
Points at net7%

Plays most like

  1. Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
  2. Denis Istomin 2006–2021 plan v
  3. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Ugo Humbert 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014 plan v
  7. David Goffin 2013–2025 plan v
  8. Hubert Hurkacz 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014
  2. David Nalbandian 2002–2012
  3. Jarkko Nieminen 2003–2014

Charted matches