RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 25 charted matches · 2015–2025

Mackenzie Mcdonald

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.1% ±2.7 raw 60.5% · tour 63.4% · 2,374 points
Return points won 36.8% ±2.8 raw 33.3% · tour 36.6% · 2,245 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 −0.20 ±0.11 better than 13% of ATP · raw −0.21
Shot selection +0.48 ±0.12 better than 91% of ATP · raw +0.47
Execution −0.70 ±0.58 better than 37% of ATP · raw −0.78
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 25 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.79 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 31% 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 11,775 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Mackenzie Mcdonald 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 · 739 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 42.1%±5.0 43.7%
BH crosscourt 31% 47.8%±5.2 47.6%
BH down the line 10% 45.5%±8.5 46.4%
FH inside-out 8% 43.3%±9.3 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 39.3%±9.6 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 36.9%±10.5 35.1%
BH slice down the line 2% 41.2%±13.7 37.1%
FH inside-in 2% 55.7%±14.0 54.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 640 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 51.9%±6.0 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 56.4%±6.6 51.5%
FH through the middle 20% 53.2%±6.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 13% 41.9%±7.9 46.8%
BH crosscourt 5% 38.4%±11.4 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 4% 71.1%±10.8 70.5%
BH down the line 4% 37.8%±12.0 48.3%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 54.3%±15.0 56.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 467 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 47% 44.8%±5.3 46.6%
FH through the middle 29% 45.6%±6.6 41.5%
FH down the line 15% 47.2%±8.6 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 5% 20.2%±10.0 24.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 375 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 37% 47.9%±6.5 48.0%
BH through the middle 31% 50.9%±7.1 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 37.4%±10.5 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 38.1%±11.2 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 7% 34.8%±11.6 35.1%
FH inside-in 3% 47.9%±14.8 54.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Mackenzie Mcdonald's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 235 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 37% 18% ▼ 65% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 60% / 63%
T 54% 76% ▲ 73% / 75%

1,180 normal · 55 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 44% 68% / 73%
Body 5% 7% 64% / 63%
T 45% 49% 62% / 72%

950 normal · 180 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
Wide37% 63.2%±3.6 n=452 32% ▼
Body8% 51.7%±7.2 n=99 0% ▼
T55% 64.1%±3.0 n=684 68% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.006): serve T more. Gap 1.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 59.6%±3.3 n=554 62% ▲
Body5% 62.4%±8.4 n=61 5%
T46% 56.1%±3.5 n=515 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.26).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.43 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: −1.1±4.5 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. (856 repeats, 1,459 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 97 30% −7.0±6.7
1stAd courtT 241 25% −2.8±4.3
1stAd courtWide 316 21% −6.1±3.6
1stDeuce courtBody 100 38% +1.0±7.0
1stDeuce courtT 324 22% −2.9±3.6
1stDeuce courtWide 313 22% −4.7±3.7
2ndAd courtBody 124 53% +3.7±6.6
2ndAd courtT 67 52% +3.1±8.3
2ndAd courtWide 219 48% ±0.0±5.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 183 48% −0.8±5.6
2ndDeuce courtT 188 47% −3.0±5.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 70 47% −0.7±8.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.7% · won 68% · +3.1±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 65% · +0.5±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 61% · −4.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.3% · won 56% · −8.4±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 58% · −6.4±7.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.9% · won 52% · +17.2±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 48% · +12.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 48% · +13.4±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.7% · won 42% · +7.5±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.6% · won 42% · +7.6±9.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 56% · +9.6±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 56% · +9.3±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 53% · +6.3±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 52% · +5.4±9.5 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.6% · won 52% · +5.8±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 56% · +9.8±11.7 vs own baseline · +19.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ugo Humbert (5/7)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 54% · +7.5±10.2 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex Michelsen (4/6), Jannik Sinner (8/12)
  3. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 55% · +7.9±10.7 vs own baseline · +5.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/8)
  4. FH down the line + approach → BH down the line → FH volley crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +11.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/6)
  5. FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.2% · won 57% · +10.0±12.9 vs own baseline · +18.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 57% · +10.0±12.9 vs own baseline · +0.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/6)

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 · serve +1+1.8150
BH to the middle · return+1.6570
FH to the middle · return +1+1.5155
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.0182
FH to their backhand · rally+1.0591

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.7325
FH to their forehand · return−2.9187
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.2378
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.0197
BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.0179

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.30, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.02, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.92, Casper Ruud +1.90, Jack Draper +1.83

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.14, Fabian Marozsan +1.07, Pedro Martinez +1.04, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.90, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.90

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Brandon Nakashima, Rinky Hijikata, Thiago Seyboth Wild, Jannik Sinner

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle32%
T serves · deuce55%
Forehand share58%
T serves · ad46%
1st serve in64%
Deep returns31%
Points at net13%
Avg rally length4.1
Run-around forehands19%
Unforced errors / shot10.0%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Wide serves · ad49%
Backhand slice18%
Point-ending shots22.3%
Serve & volley3%
FH down the line29%
Chipped returns9%
BH down the line16%
Wide serves · deuce37%

Plays most like

  1. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  2. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  3. Guido Pella 2014–2021 plan v
  4. Zhizhen Zhang 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Botic Van De Zandschulp 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Arthur Cazaux 2020–2025 plan v
  7. Jordan Thompson 2016–2025 plan v
  8. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  2. Marat Safin 1998–2009
  3. Nicolas Massu 2000–2009

Charted matches