RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 34 charted matches · 1982–1995

Mats Wilander

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.1% ±2.5 raw 60.1% · tour 63.4% · 3,515 points
Return points won 40.7% ±2.6 raw 39.8% · tour 36.6% · 3,419 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 −0.43 ±0.17 better than 1% of ATP · raw −0.43
Shot selection −0.44 ±0.23 better than 14% of ATP · raw −0.44
Execution +1.61 ±0.32 better than 99% of ATP · raw +1.67
Tactical adaptability +0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 33 matches
Adaptation speed +0.03 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.19 ±0.46 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 6,342 shots · better than 89% of ATP
Points left on the table 3.26 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 11% 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 22,470 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Mats Wilander 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.

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,818 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 50.4%±3.0 48.0%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 49.4%±4.5 42.1%
BH through the middle 17% 48.7%±4.6 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 51.9%±5.5 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 6% 33.1%±6.8 35.1%
FH inside-out 3% 53.6%±9.8 52.6%
BH slice down the line 3% 39.6%±9.9 35.8%
BH down the line + approach 1% 60.6%±13.4 69.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,283 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 19% 56.8%±5.0 49.6%
BH through the middle 18% 51.5%±5.1 46.8%
FH crosscourt 13% 56.2%±5.9 52.7%
FH through the middle 13% 58.0%±5.9 47.4%
FH down the line 13% 49.9%±6.1 52.0%
BH down the line 9% 60.5%±7.0 49.5%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 46.4%±9.2 45.4%
BH slice through the middle 3% 61.5%±10.2 45.7%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,034 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 47.1%±3.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 18% 52.1%±5.8 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 16% 47.6%±6.0 42.5%
BH down the line 11% 47.6%±7.1 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 39.7%±9.8 35.1%
FH inside-out 4% 53.6%±10.1 51.8%
BH slice down the line 2% 38.2%±12.2 37.1%
BH down the line + approach 2% 53.5%±13.7 66.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 958 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 40% 47.8%±4.1 41.4%
FH crosscourt 31% 53.6%±4.6 46.9%
FH down the line 23% 55.6%±5.3 44.8%
FH slice through the middle 3% 26.7%±10.4 25.4%
FH down the line + approach 2% 67.8%±12.5 68.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 20.5%±11.7 27.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Mats Wilander's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 360 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 43% 61% / 73%
Body 16% 14% 60% / 63%
T 38% 42% 68% / 75%

1,607 normal · 92 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 45% 64% / 73%
Body 14% 16% 57% / 63%
T 37% 39% 64% / 72%

1,299 normal · 268 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
Wide46% 57.5%±2.9 n=782 33% ▼
Body16% 60.2%±4.6 n=271 16%
T38% 61.3%±3.1 n=646 51% ▲

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

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 57.5%±2.9 n=750 48%
Body14% 54.4%±5.1 n=227 1% ▼
T38% 59.9%±3.2 n=590 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.23).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.46 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: −2.3±3.2 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. (1,340 repeats, 1,858 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 89 43% +5.9±7.5
1stAd courtT 283 28% −0.4±4.2
1stAd courtWide 449 31% +4.1±3.5
1stDeuce courtBody 175 42% +5.2±5.7
1stDeuce courtT 345 31% +5.5±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 452 28% +1.3±3.4
2ndAd courtBody 163 49% −0.8±5.9
2ndAd courtT 67 56% +7.2±8.3
2ndAd courtWide 477 55% +6.4±3.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 291 51% +1.7±4.6
2ndDeuce courtT 176 49% −0.2±5.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 231 50% +2.3±5.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 59% · −1.2±7.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 54% · −5.8±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 53% · −7.6±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 52% · −8.5±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 4.2% · won 48% · −12.5±6.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.2% · won 51% · +9.0±5.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 55% · +12.4±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.3% · won 50% · +7.1±5.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.2% · won 54% · +12.0±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line, mid used 2.6% · won 53% · +10.5±8.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 59% · +8.2±6.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 56% · +5.2±5.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 58% · +6.9±7.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.9% · won 56% · +5.0±6.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 56% · +5.3±7.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 66% · +14.7±10.4 vs own baseline · +30.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by John Mcenroe (9/13), Guillermo Vilas (8/10)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.4% · won 59% · +8.6±8.9 vs own baseline · +16.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ivan Lendl (22/37)
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 62% · +10.9±11.0 vs own baseline · +25.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ivan Lendl (10/13), Martin Jaite (7/8)
  4. T serve → BH slice through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 64% · +13.4±12.5 vs own baseline · +24.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.4% · won 58% · +6.8±9.0 vs own baseline · +14.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ivan Lendl (25/44)
  6. FH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +8.4±10.3 vs own baseline · +13.6 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 their backhand · return+4.5274
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1+4.1134
BH slice to the middle · rally+3.5376
BH to their backhand · return+2.9479
BH slice to their backhand · rally+2.6922

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−5.6349
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1−5.4221
BH volley to their forehand · serve +1−5.3123
FH to their backhand · return−4.8399
BH to their backhand · return−4.6226

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length6.1
1st serve in70%
Points at net22%
Through the middle30%
Serve & volley24%
BH down the line23%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Backhand slice24%
FH down the line31%
T serves · ad38%
Wide serves · ad48%
Chipped returns12%
Run-around forehands10%
T serves · deuce38%
Drop shots / shot0.1%
Point-ending shots13.4%
Forehand share41%
Unforced errors / shot4.2%
Deep returns8%

Plays most like

  1. Andrei Chesnokov 1989–1995 plan v
  2. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005 plan v
  3. Jenson Brooksby 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Fabrice Santoro 1990–2008 plan v
  5. Jiri Novak 1996–2004 plan v
  6. Michael Chang 1989–1998 plan v
  7. Sergi Bruguera 1990–1997 plan v
  8. Bjorn Borg 1974–1991 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005
  2. Jenson Brooksby 2021–2026
  3. Jarkko Nieminen 2003–2014

Charted matches