RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 13 charted matches · 2014–2022

Peter Gojowczyk

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 61.0% ±3.5 raw 57.2% · tour 63.4% · 899 points
Return points won 37.4% ±3.5 raw 34.6% · tour 36.6% · 836 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 +0.06 ±0.12 better than 71% of ATP · raw +0.05
Shot selection +0.35 ±0.11 better than 83% of ATP · raw +0.35
Execution −2.25 ±0.64 better than 1% of ATP · raw −2.26
Tactical adaptability −0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.17 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 95% 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 4,302 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Peter Gojowczyk 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 middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 232 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 39.5%±8.7 52.7%
FH down the line 22% 49.0%±9.7 51.5%
FH through the middle 19% 41.9%±10.2 47.0%
BH through the middle 11% 37.7%±11.8 46.8%
BH crosscourt 10% 45.1%±12.3 49.1%
BH down the line 6% 40.2%±13.8 48.3%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 201 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 50% 34.6%±7.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 42.9%±9.5 43.7%
BH down the line 17% 46.8%±11.2 46.4%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 160 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 54% 31.4%±7.4 46.6%
FH down the line 24% 37.2%±10.4 44.7%
FH through the middle 22% 38.7%±10.8 41.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 122 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 41.1%±9.5 48.0%
BH through the middle 30% 31.2%±10.1 43.8%
BH down the line 27% 40.2%±11.1 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −9 How much less varied Peter Gojowczyk's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 107 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 38% ▼ 66% / 73%
Body 7% 7% 51% / 63%
T 47% 55% ▲ 72% / 75%

441 normal · 29 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 42% 76% / 73%
Body 5% 12% 50% / 63%
T 49% 46% 70% / 72%

349 normal · 78 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% 56.3%±5.2 n=214 40% ▼
Body7% 44.8%±10.2 n=34 0% ▼
T47% 58.0%±5.1 n=222 60% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.030): serve T more. Gap 1.8 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide45% 60.7%±5.4 n=193 58% ▲
Body6% 48.5%±11.0 n=26 0% ▼
T49% 59.0%±5.2 n=208 42% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.05).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.43 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: −1.4±3.6 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. (384 repeats, 489 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 37 39% +2.0±9.8
1stAd courtT 107 26% −2.2±6.2
1stAd courtWide 112 26% −1.1±6.1
1stDeuce courtBody 36 41% +4.2±10.0
1stDeuce courtT 101 28% +2.8±6.4
1stDeuce courtWide 129 20% −7.6±5.2
2ndAd courtBody 68 56% +6.6±8.2
2ndAd courtT 18 39% −10.1±11.6
2ndAd courtWide 56 47% −1.3±8.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 80 46% −2.9±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 51 52% +2.0±9.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 41 44% −3.8±9.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 62% · −1.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 60% · −3.9±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 56% · −8.1±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 54% · −9.8±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 52% · −11.5±11.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.0% · won 40% · +8.5±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.7% · won 37% · +5.3±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 6.8% · won 31% · −1.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 6.0% · won 29% · −3.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 7.4% · won 22% · −9.4±9.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 45% · +7.8±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.6% · won 42% · +4.5±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 43% · +5.3±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.6% · won 40% · +2.8±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 40% · +2.6±10.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 44% · +3.7±12.8 vs own baseline · −3.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 40% · −0.2±12.8 vs own baseline · −12.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 38% · −2.1±12.4 vs own baseline · −13.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Carlos Alcaraz (2/6)
  4. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 38% · −2.1±12.4 vs own baseline · −10.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 38% · −2.1±12.4 vs own baseline · −17.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 37% · −3.0±12.2 vs own baseline · −11.6 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

BH to the middle · rally+1.2143
BH to the middle · return+0.8166
T 1st serve · ad court±0.0208
Body 2nd serve · deuce court−0.6123
BH to their backhand · rally−0.7224

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−2.5208
BH to the middle · rally−2.2135
BH to their forehand · rally−1.8120
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.4178
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.2201

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roberto Carballes Baena, Roberto Bautista Agut, Miomir Kecmanovic, Pedro Martinez, Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot14.9%
Deep returns38%
T serves · ad49%
Forehand share58%
Point-ending shots27.7%
Wide serves · deuce46%
T serves · deuce47%
BH down the line22%
Through the middle24%
FH down the line30%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Run-around forehands15%
Serve & volley1%
Avg rally length3.7
Points at net8%
Wide serves · ad45%
Backhand slice6%
Chipped returns4%
1st serve in52%

Plays most like

  1. Lucas Pouille 2015–2024 plan v
  2. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  3. Sebastian Ofner 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Jared Donaldson 2014–2019 plan v
  5. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  6. Marin Cilic 2009–2026 plan v
  7. Zhizhen Zhang 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Tomas Berdych 2005–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Thomas Enqvist 1993–2001
  2. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  3. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002

Charted matches