RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 44 charted matches · 1990–1997

Michael Stich

Archetype: Serve-and-volleyer · Net rusher

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 67.4% ±2.3 raw 66.2% · tour 63.4% · 4,975 points
Return points won 36.7% ±2.4 raw 33.6% · tour 36.6% · 4,959 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 −0.23 ±0.10 better than 10% of ATP · raw −0.23
Shot selection +0.53 ±0.16 better than 95% of ATP · raw +0.53
Execution −1.39 ±0.40 better than 13% of ATP · raw −1.34
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 42 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 4.51 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 2% 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 19,266 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Michael Stich 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 · 470 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 23% 47.2%±7.3 42.5%
BH crosscourt 20% 48.7%±7.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 18% 33.4%±7.6 43.7%
BH down the line 16% 43.4%±8.4 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 37.8%±10.2 35.1%
BH slice down the line 5% 37.3%±12.0 37.1%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 49.8%±13.9 47.2%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 412 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 25% 48.9%±7.4 40.9%
BH through the middle 20% 38.8%±7.9 43.0%
BH crosscourt 19% 43.4%±8.2 46.9%
BH down the line 14% 38.8%±9.1 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 11% 36.2%±9.8 32.6%
BH slice down the line 9% 36.9%±10.6 33.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle, you at net

position worth 57% to the average player · 400 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH volley down the line 24% 63.7%±7.4 58.0%
FH volley down the line 20% 60.3%±8.1 60.6%
FH volley crosscourt 16% 59.5%±8.9 63.8%
BH volley through the middle 16% 49.9%±9.1 39.5%
BH volley crosscourt 14% 59.1%±9.3 64.6%
FH volley through the middle 12% 42.5%±9.9 39.5%

Serve +1: short return to your middle, you at net

position worth 54% to the average player · 396 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH volley down the line 26% 58.9%±7.3 55.4%
FH volley crosscourt 18% 70.3%±7.9 61.3%
FH volley through the middle 13% 34.7%±9.2 36.5%
BH volley through the middle 13% 36.6%±9.3 36.6%
BH volley down the line 13% 59.4%±9.6 50.8%
BH volley crosscourt 10% 49.7%±10.7 56.5%
FH down the line 4% 73.5%±12.1 77.3%
FH crosscourt 3% 77.0%±12.4 79.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Michael Stich's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 386 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 39% 52% ▲ 77% / 73%
Body 10% 3% 60% / 63%
T 51% 44% 80% / 75%

2,443 normal · 86 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 43% 77% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 68% / 63%
T 51% 52% 75% / 72%

2,008 normal · 300 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% 67.0%±2.4 n=1,006 53% ▲
Body10% 60.2%±4.9 n=241 0% ▼
T51% 64.9%±2.2 n=1,282 47% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 66.8%±2.5 n=954 54% ▲
Body8% 64.1%±5.5 n=178 0% ▼
T51% 66.3%±2.2 n=1,176 46% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.70).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

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: +0.4±2.4 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. (1,972 repeats, 2,777 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 207 30% −7.0±4.9
1stAd courtT 503 25% −2.6±3.1
1stAd courtWide 667 23% −3.8±2.6
1stDeuce courtBody 263 29% −7.4±4.4
1stDeuce courtT 578 23% −1.6±2.8
1stDeuce courtWide 670 25% −1.9±2.7
2ndAd courtBody 346 49% −0.2±4.2
2ndAd courtT 125 51% +2.2±6.6
2ndAd courtWide 450 48% +0.1±3.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 473 45% −3.7±3.7
2ndDeuce courtT 301 50% +0.1±4.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 221 44% −4.1±5.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH volley crosscourt used 2.7% · won 74% · +3.1±6.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH volley down the line used 3.7% · won 68% · −2.3±5.5 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH volley down the line used 3.2% · won 64% · −6.5±6.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → BH volley down the line used 2.5% · won 61% · −9.6±6.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH volley down the line used 2.2% · won 59% · −12.1±7.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 48% · +14.5±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.1% · won 48% · +14.3±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 44% · +11.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.3% · won 45% · +11.5±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.1% · won 45% · +12.0±7.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 52% · +9.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 51% · +8.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 52% · +8.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.9% · won 47% · +4.3±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 1.9% · won 47% · +4.4±10.5 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 Stich wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH volley down the line → BH down the line → FH volley crosscourt used 0.3% · won 69% · +20.8±11.4 vs own baseline · +13.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH volley down the line → FH down the line → BH volley crosscourt used 0.3% · won 65% · +17.1±11.6 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Boris Becker (5/6)
  3. Wide serve → BH slice crosscourt return, short → BH volley down the line used 0.4% · won 63% · +15.2±11.3 vs own baseline · +18.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → BH through the middle return → FH volley down the line used 0.3% · won 64% · +15.7±11.5 vs own baseline · +16.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH volley down the line used 0.3% · won 65% · +17.0±12.0 vs own baseline · +29.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. T serve → FH through the middle return, short → FH volley crosscourt used 0.3% · won 62% · +13.8±12.3 vs own baseline · +23.3 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 volley to their forehand · serve +1+3.1421
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+2.71,006
BH slice to their backhand · rally+2.1267
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.9127
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.7380

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return +1−3.9246
FH to their forehand · return−2.8282
FH to the middle · serve +1−2.3177
BH to their backhand · return−1.3567
Body 2nd serve · ad court−1.3346

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jack Draper, Ugo Humbert, Rafael Nadal, Casper Ruud, Pablo Carreno Busta

Tactical fingerprint

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

Serve & volley70%
Points at net26%
Point-ending shots35.6%
BH down the line32%
T serves · ad51%
Backhand slice37%
FH down the line35%
T serves · deuce51%
Unforced errors / shot11.8%
Chipped returns22%
Through the middle26%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Run-around forehands8%
1st serve in56%
Wide serves · ad41%
Forehand share46%
Avg rally length2.9
Deep returns13%

Plays most like

  1. Boris Becker 1985–1999 plan v
  2. Todd Martin 1992–2001 plan v
  3. Malivai Washington 1992–1996 plan v
  4. Guy Forget 1991–1996 plan v
  5. John Mcenroe 1978–1992 plan v
  6. Pete Sampras 1990–2002 plan v
  7. Richard Krajicek 1992–2000 plan v
  8. Mark Philippoussis 1995–2003 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Mischa Zverev 2013–2020
  2. Radek Stepanek 2004–2014
  3. Gilles Muller 2005–2017

Charted matches