Lukas Lacko

Against an average opponent

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

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 2,091 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lukas Lacko 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.

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Lukas Lacko's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 49 break-point first 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.

Exploitability 0.44 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: +1.3±10.2 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. (185 repeats, 238 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

Signature patterns

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

Discovered sequences

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

1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 45% · +2.1±12.1 vs own baseline · +0.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (2/6)
2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 44% · +1.4±13.0 vs own baseline · −6.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (2/6)
3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 41% · −1.7±12.4 vs own baseline · −9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Laurynas Grigelis (4/6)
4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 41% · −1.8±11.7 vs own baseline · −9.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (0/9)

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.

Charted matches

• Lukas Lacko v Oscar Otte L Ismaning CH F · Hard · 31 Oct 2021
• Lukas Lacko v Robin Haase L Miami Masters R128 · Hard · 21 Mar 2019
• Lukas Lacko v Roger Federer L Wimbledon R64 · Grass · 4 Jul 2018
• Lukas Lacko v Laurynas Grigelis W Izmir CH R16 · Hard · 21 Sep 2015
• Jose Rubin Statham v Lukas Lacko W Auckland R32 · Hard · 7 Jan 2014
• Mikhail Youzhny v Lukas Lacko L Zagreb F · Hard · 5 Feb 2012
• Roger Federer v Lukas Lacko L Australian Open R128 · Hard · 17 Jan 2011