Michael Mmoh

Against an average opponent

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.

Shot expected value

The share of points Michael Mmoh 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.

Serve under pressure

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.

Exploitability 0.64 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: −5.9±9.5 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. (154 repeats, 235 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

Signature patterns

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

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Michael Mmoh 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 crosscourt used 1.8% · won 52% · +4.8±12.7 vs own baseline · +10.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (8/12)
2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 48% · +1.5±11.7 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Casper Ruud (2/6), Kyle Edmund (4/10)
3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 47% · +0.3±12.1 vs own baseline · −1.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Kyle Edmund (2/7), Hubert Hurkacz (6/9)
4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 44% · −2.6±13.0 vs own baseline · −8.9 vs tour on the same sequence
5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 39% · −7.6±12.8 vs own baseline · −20.8 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.

Charted matches

• Casper Ruud v Michael Mmoh L Dallas R16 · Hard · 6 Feb 2025
• John Isner v Michael Mmoh L US Open R64 · Hard · 31 Aug 2023
• Hubert Hurkacz v Michael Mmoh W Washington R32 · Hard · 1 Aug 2023
• Vasek Pospisil v Michael Mmoh L San Francisco CH SF · Hard · 11 Feb 2017
• Michael Mmoh v Kyle Edmund L Maui CH R16 · Hard · 28 Jan 2016