RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2014–2019

Leonardo Mayer

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.9% ±2.8 raw 61.8% · tour 63.4% · 1,386 points
Return points won 34.6% ±2.9 raw 30.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,270 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 +0.08 ±0.10 better than 78% of ATP · raw +0.08
Shot selection +0.64 ±0.21 better than 97% of ATP · raw +0.63
Execution −1.77 ±0.69 better than 6% of ATP · raw −1.89
Tactical adaptability +0.03 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.47 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 66% 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 6,473 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Leonardo Mayer 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 · 364 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 40.3%±6.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 20% 35.9%±8.1 43.7%
FH inside-out 9% 43.9%±11.4 51.8%
BH down the line 7% 41.0%±11.8 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 35.1%±12.4 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 48.7%±13.0 42.5%
FH inside-in 5% 47.2%±13.3 54.7%
FH through the middle 3% 45.3%±14.7 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 299 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 36% 42.9%±7.2 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 37.7%±9.5 47.0%
FH down the line 16% 46.0%±9.9 51.5%
BH through the middle 10% 41.6%±11.6 46.8%
BH crosscourt 10% 54.7%±11.7 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 39.0%±13.6 48.3%
FH crosscourt + approach 4% 67.7%±13.8 69.9%
FH down the line + approach 3% 73.7%±13.2 70.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 252 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 39.0%±6.5 46.6%
FH through the middle 23% 32.4%±8.7 41.5%
FH down the line 17% 37.0%±10.1 44.7%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 223 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 41.3%±7.7 46.9%
BH through the middle 21% 31.2%±9.4 43.0%
BH down the line 16% 40.8%±10.8 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 8% 31.1%±12.5 32.6%
FH inside-out 6% 40.4%±14.1 51.7%
FH inside-in 5% 50.7%±14.8 53.6%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 40.6%±14.7 40.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Leonardo Mayer's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 109 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 50% 74% / 73%
Body 8% 13% 57% / 63%
T 40% 37% 73% / 75%

693 normal · 30 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 56% 67% / 73%
Body 10% 11% 60% / 63%
T 42% 33% ▼ 69% / 72%

580 normal · 79 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
Wide52% 67.1%±3.8 n=374 65% ▲
Body9% 59.8%±8.4 n=62 0% ▼
T40% 63.1%±4.5 n=287 35% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.21).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 57.4%±4.3 n=322 46% ▼
Body10% 56.3%±8.3 n=67 0% ▼
T41% 61.5%±4.6 n=270 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.43).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.59 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: +1.4±4.1 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. (530 repeats, 822 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 50 35% −1.9±8.8
1stAd courtT 139 24% −4.1±5.4
1stAd courtWide 215 20% −6.8±4.2
1stDeuce courtBody 65 35% −2.0±8.0
1stDeuce courtT 218 26% +0.5±4.6
1stDeuce courtWide 169 23% −4.5±4.9
2ndAd courtBody 61 42% −7.8±8.5
2ndAd courtT 34 50% +0.4±10.3
2ndAd courtWide 104 38% −10.7±6.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 73 50% +1.2±8.1
2ndDeuce courtT 94 45% −4.6±7.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 45 53% +4.5±9.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 66% · −2.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 65% · −3.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 63% · −5.9±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.2% · won 61% · −7.1±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 62% · −6.7±9.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.5% · won 34% · +3.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.8% · won 34% · +2.6±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.2% · won 35% · +3.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 32% · +0.9±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 29% · −2.5±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 40% · +3.1±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 41% · +4.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.7% · won 42% · +4.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 40% · +2.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 3.0% · won 38% · +1.4±10.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Leonardo Mayer 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 crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +7.4±12.9 vs own baseline · +3.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 49% · +5.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +0.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 44% · +0.3±11.5 vs own baseline · −6.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (3/7)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 43% · ±0.0±11.8 vs own baseline · −5.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 43% · −0.9±12.6 vs own baseline · −10.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Body serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 43% · −0.9±12.6 vs own baseline · −11.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (2/6)

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 their backhand · return+1.7144
FH to their backhand · rally+0.1383
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.2298
FH to their forehand · serve +1−0.2232
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.3287

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−4.1139
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.5211
T 1st serve · ad court−2.7207
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.9248
FH to their forehand · rally−1.7308

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share62%
Wide serves · deuce52%
Unforced errors / shot12.3%
Run-around forehands28%
Deep returns33%
Point-ending shots27.7%
T serves · ad41%
Points at net12%
Chipped returns16%
1st serve in61%
Serve & volley5%
Wide serves · ad49%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Avg rally length3.7
Backhand slice14%
Through the middle22%
BH down the line16%
T serves · deuce40%
FH down the line23%

Plays most like

  1. Arthur Fils 2023–2026 plan v
  2. Tallon Griekspoor 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Lloyd Harris 2019–2024 plan v
  5. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Felix Auger Aliassime 2017–2026 plan v
  7. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  8. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Jim Courier 1989–1999
  3. Andre Agassi 1988–2006

Charted matches