RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 14 charted matches · 2003–2012

Mardy Fish

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.0% ±3.2 raw 62.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,227 points
Return points won 38.1% ±3.4 raw 32.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,132 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 −0.14 ±0.17 better than 22% of ATP · raw −0.14
Shot selection +0.63 ±0.27 better than 96% of ATP · raw +0.61
Execution −1.57 ±0.69 better than 8% of ATP · raw −1.77
Tactical adaptability −0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.03 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 19% 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 5,426 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Mardy Fish 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 forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 198 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 49.2%±9.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 31% 44.8%±9.1 41.5%
FH down the line 24% 34.3%±9.5 44.7%
FH down the line + approach 5% 69.5%±13.8 69.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 185 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 21% 34.6%±10.2 47.0%
FH down the line 20% 40.9%±10.7 51.5%
FH crosscourt 19% 47.4%±11.0 52.7%
BH through the middle 15% 43.3%±11.9 46.8%
BH crosscourt 11% 44.6%±12.9 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 6% 64.9%±14.1 70.5%
BH down the line 5% 42.2%±14.8 48.3%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 178 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 47.5%±8.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 39.9%±9.5 43.7%
BH down the line 16% 43.4%±11.6 46.4%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 143 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 42.5%±8.3 46.9%
BH through the middle 26% 46.7%±10.9 43.0%
BH down the line 11% 44.0%±13.6 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 7% 21.7%±12.4 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Mardy Fish's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 87 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 36% ▼ 78% / 73%
Body 7% 0% 59% / 63%
T 48% 64% ▲ 80% / 75%

624 normal · 14 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 40% ▼ 74% / 73%
Body 6% 7% 51% / 63%
T 39% 53% ▲ 73% / 72%

511 normal · 73 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
Wide45% 64.3%±4.4 n=285 38% ▼
Body7% 58.4%±9.6 n=42 0% ▼
T49% 66.5%±4.2 n=311 62% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.23).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 61.5%±4.4 n=308 46% ▼
Body6% 51.2%±10.0 n=37 0% ▼
T41% 61.5%±4.9 n=239 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.08).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

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: +2.8±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. (578 repeats, 616 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 44 35% −1.7±9.1
1stAd courtT 141 27% −0.9±5.6
1stAd courtWide 134 27% −0.3±5.7
1stDeuce courtBody 40 34% −2.4±9.3
1stDeuce courtT 122 19% −6.3±5.2
1stDeuce courtWide 193 27% −0.7±4.9
2ndAd courtBody 77 47% −2.8±7.9
2ndAd courtT 43 46% −3.0±9.6
2ndAd courtWide 95 44% −4.0±7.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 98 47% −2.4±7.3
2ndDeuce courtT 79 40% −9.4±7.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 60 45% −3.2±8.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.3% · won 69% · −2.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 65% · −6.4±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 61% · −10.4±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 59% · −11.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 54% · −16.5±10.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.4% · won 44% · +11.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 38% · +5.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.7% · won 36% · +2.7±9.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 36% · +3.4±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 32% · −1.2±10.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 52% · +7.9±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 5.7% · won 51% · +7.0±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.5% · won 50% · +6.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 50% · +5.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 47% · +2.3±11.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Mardy Fish 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 through the middle used 1.3% · won 53% · +8.0±10.9 vs own baseline · +14.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andy Murray (3/6), Roger Federer (7/12)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 51% · +5.4±11.2 vs own baseline · +6.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andy Murray (4/7), Andy Roddick (8/13)
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 51% · +5.5±12.4 vs own baseline · +13.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andy Roddick (7/9)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 47% · +2.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (4/10)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 47% · +2.0±12.5 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (4/9)
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 44% · −1.3±12.3 vs own baseline · −6.8 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 the middle · return+0.4233
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+0.1155
FH to their backhand · rally+0.1213
Wide 1st serve · ad court±0.0308
BH to their backhand · serve +1−0.1121

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · rally−2.7167
FH to their forehand · rally−1.3260
BH to their backhand · return−0.5134
T 1st serve · ad court+0.1235
FH to their backhand · rally+0.3204

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Richard Gasquet, Nishesh Basavareddy, Arthur Cazaux, Jaume Munar, Daniel Evans

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot13.0%
Points at net19%
Point-ending shots28.9%
Through the middle28%
Serve & volley21%
T serves · deuce49%
Wide serves · ad53%
T serves · ad41%
Wide serves · deuce45%
FH down the line31%
BH down the line21%
Forehand share53%
Chipped returns14%
Deep returns22%
Run-around forehands10%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
Avg rally length3.4
Backhand slice8%
1st serve in53%

Plays most like

  1. Jan Lennard Struff 2014–2025 plan v
  2. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  3. Nicolas Kiefer 1999–2008 plan v
  4. Marat Safin 1998–2009 plan v
  5. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  6. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002 plan v
  7. Cedric Pioline 1992–2000 plan v
  8. Mario Ancic 2002–2008 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025
  2. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026
  3. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026

Charted matches