RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 7 charted matches · 2018–2025

Maximilian Marterer

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.7% ±3.7 raw 64.9% · tour 63.4% · 473 points
Return points won 32.8% ±3.7 raw 29.8% · tour 36.6% · 440 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 +0.22 ±0.11 better than 95% of ATP · raw +0.22
Shot selection +0.08 ±0.26 better than 62% of ATP · raw +0.10
Execution −1.46 ±1.33 better than 10% of ATP · raw −1.06

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 2,310 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Maximilian Marterer 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 · 162 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 45.4%±8.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 40.9%±10.2 43.7%
BH down the line 10% 53.5%±13.7 46.4%
FH inside-in 7% 59.2%±14.3 54.7%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 98 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 48% 47.2%±10.0 48.0%
BH through the middle 23% 41.3%±12.4 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 51.0%±15.0 46.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 93 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 46.3%±10.1 52.7%
FH down the line 14% 58.5%±14.1 51.5%
FH through the middle 11% 41.3%±14.8 47.0%
BH crosscourt 11% 52.8%±15.0 49.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 84 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 75% 43.8%±9.0 46.6%
FH down the line 13% 45.0%±14.7 44.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Maximilian Marterer's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 42 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 62% ▲ 75% / 73%
Body 13% 15% 61% / 63%
T 48% 23% ▼ 66% / 75%

235 normal · 13 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 60% 66% 73% / 73%
Body 11% 7% 59% / 63%
T 30% 28% 77% / 72%

196 normal · 29 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
Wide40% 68.0%±6.8 n=99 53% ▲
Body13% 58.0%±10.2 n=33 0% ▼
T47% 59.6%±6.7 n=116 47%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.13).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide60% 69.6%±5.9 n=136 74% ▲
Body10% 60.6%±11.0 n=23 0% ▼
T29% 68.0%±7.8 n=66 26% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.18).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.82 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: +8.1±3.8 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. (200 repeats, 259 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 19 35% −2.1±11.2
1stAd courtT 46 29% +1.5±8.6
1stAd courtWide 69 29% +2.2±7.5
1stDeuce courtBody 26 30% −6.3±10.1
1stDeuce courtT 64 23% −2.2±7.1
1stDeuce courtWide 74 22% −4.9±6.7
2ndAd courtBody 36 38% −11.8±9.8
2ndAd courtT 14 47% −2.0±12.4
2ndAd courtWide 20 41% −7.3±11.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 20 51% +2.4±11.6
2ndDeuce courtT 16 50% +0.1±12.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 36 43% −5.0±10.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 14.0% · won 67% · −4.9±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 11.2% · won 56% · −15.8±10.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.9% · won 51% · +7.3±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 10.8% · won 45% · +1.2±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 8.1% · won 44% · −0.5±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 10.4% · won 42% · −1.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 20.5% · won 41% · −2.8±8.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 46% · −1.3±10.9 vs own baseline · −3.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Philipp Kohlschreiber (2/6), Dominic Thiem (4/8)
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.8% · won 42% · −5.6±12.1 vs own baseline · −10.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (4/7)
  3. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 41% · −6.4±12.7 vs own baseline · −15.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Aljaz Bedene (1/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 41% · −6.1±11.7 vs own baseline · −18.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (1/7), Federico Arnaboldi (5/8)
  5. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 38% · −9.4±10.3 vs own baseline · −17.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (1/9), Federico Arnaboldi (2/7)

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

Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.7136
BH to their forehand · rally+1.2144
FH to their backhand · serve +1+0.7143
FH to their backhand · rally+0.5230

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.0203

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Adrian Andreev, Alex Molcan, Rafael Nadal, Hugo Gaston, Daniel Evans

Charted matches