RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 38 charted matches · 1989–1998

Michael Chang

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.1% ±2.6 raw 59.2% · tour 63.4% · 4,049 points
Return points won 38.1% ±2.7 raw 35.1% · tour 36.6% · 3,835 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 −0.01 ±0.13 better than 54% of ATP · raw −0.01
Shot selection −0.02 ±0.19 better than 49% of ATP · raw −0.03
Execution +1.06 ±0.36 better than 96% of ATP · raw +0.97
Tactical adaptability +0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 38 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.42 ±0.50 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,816 shots · better than 20% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.88 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 26% 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 20,411 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Michael Chang 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 · 1,373 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 48.1%±3.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 42.9%±4.8 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 47.6%±6.2 46.4%
FH inside-out 5% 57.2%±8.4 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 50.0%±10.0 42.5%
FH inside-in 3% 55.1%±10.0 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 2% 30.7%±10.8 35.1%
FH through the middle 2% 52.4%±12.4 45.2%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 946 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 46% 47.0%±3.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 25% 40.8%±5.0 41.5%
FH down the line 23% 50.2%±5.4 44.7%
FH down the line + approach 5% 75.2%±8.6 69.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 810 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 46.7%±3.9 48.0%
BH through the middle 16% 50.2%±6.7 43.8%
BH down the line 13% 53.9%±7.4 46.5%
FH inside-out 4% 43.8%±10.9 52.6%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 57.4%±11.2 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 3% 26.1%±10.7 35.1%
FH inside-in 2% 54.6%±12.9 54.3%
BH down the line + approach 2% 67.1%±12.7 69.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 664 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 55.1%±6.1 52.7%
FH down the line 17% 53.3%±7.1 51.5%
BH crosscourt 16% 45.2%±7.2 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 44.6%±8.0 46.8%
FH through the middle 11% 45.2%±8.4 47.0%
BH down the line 5% 45.3%±11.6 48.3%
BH crosscourt + approach 5% 71.1%±10.5 67.7%
FH down the line + approach 4% 59.8%±11.8 70.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +4 How much less varied Michael Chang's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 418 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 45% 65% / 73%
Body 8% 10% 56% / 63%
T 51% 45% 69% / 75%

1,853 normal · 91 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 51% 65% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 59% / 63%
T 44% 44% 63% / 72%

1,468 normal · 327 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
Wide41% 59.0%±2.8 n=805 37% ▼
Body8% 55.7%±5.9 n=161 0% ▼
T50% 59.6%±2.5 n=978 63% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.52).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 58.4%±2.7 n=869 61% ▲
Body7% 57.5%±6.4 n=131 0% ▼
T44% 56.3%±2.8 n=795 39% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.64).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.21 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: +0.4±3.4 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. (1,534 repeats, 2,129 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 122 38% +0.6±6.5
1stAd courtT 365 26% −2.1±3.6
1stAd courtWide 508 33% +5.3±3.3
1stDeuce courtBody 152 41% +4.0±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 399 21% −4.0±3.2
1stDeuce courtWide 509 25% −2.3±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 280 50% +0.6±4.7
2ndAd courtT 103 43% −6.6±7.1
2ndAd courtWide 311 49% +1.1±4.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 291 50% +0.7±4.6
2ndDeuce courtT 245 51% +1.5±5.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 239 48% −0.3±5.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 62% · +0.9±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 59% · −2.1±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.1% · won 58% · −2.8±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 55% · −6.0±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.3% · won 53% · −8.3±7.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.9% · won 49% · +11.3±5.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 52% · +14.5±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 46% · +8.3±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.6% · won 44% · +5.9±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.1% · won 43% · +5.5±7.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 1.0% · won 63% · +15.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 56% · +7.7±5.7 vs own baseline
  3. BH down the line → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 54% · +5.5±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.2% · won 52% · +3.7±6.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 54% · +6.0±9.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Michael Chang 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 + approach used 0.4% · won 67% · +18.4±9.1 vs own baseline · +5.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (7/10), Pete Sampras (5/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 56% · +7.9±6.0 vs own baseline · +8.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (18/37), Pete Sampras (24/42)
  3. Wide serve → FH down the line return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 65% · +16.2±10.2 vs own baseline · +24.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (4/6), Stefan Edberg (14/16)
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 64% · +15.8±11.2 vs own baseline · +11.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrei Chesnokov (4/6), Andre Agassi (11/12)
  5. BH through the middle → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 62% · +13.3±11.1 vs own baseline · +27.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrei Chesnokov (16/20)
  6. Wide serve → FH crosscourt return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 64% · +15.5±11.9 vs own baseline · +10.7 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

BH to their forehand · return+4.9249
FH to their backhand · return+3.1356
BH to their backhand · return+3.0645
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.7244
FH to the middle · serve +1+2.3259

Most exposed to

BH slice to the middle · return−4.9322
BH slice to their backhand · return−4.8420
BH volley to their backhand · rally−4.2145
FH to their backhand · serve +1−4.1360
BH slice to their backhand · rally−3.5466

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet, Nick Kyrgios, Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard

Tactical fingerprint

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

Avg rally length4.6
T serves · ad44%
T serves · deuce50%
Points at net15%
BH down the line21%
Run-around forehands18%
FH down the line30%
Wide serves · ad48%
Serve & volley3%
Wide serves · deuce41%
Through the middle22%
Backhand slice10%
1st serve in58%
Forehand share48%
Point-ending shots18.8%
Drop shots / shot0.2%
Chipped returns4%
Unforced errors / shot6.6%
Deep returns11%

Plays most like

  1. David Nalbandian 2002–2012 plan v
  2. Aaron Krickstein 1989–1995 plan v
  3. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009 plan v
  4. Andy Murray 2005–2024 plan v
  5. Arnaud Clement 1999–2006 plan v
  6. Marcos Baghdatis 2004–2019 plan v
  7. Lleyton Hewitt 1998–2015 plan v
  8. Marat Safin 1998–2009 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andy Murray 2005–2024
  2. Marcos Baghdatis 2004–2019
  3. Taro Daniel 2014–2024

Charted matches