RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 57 charted matches · 2019–2025

Reilly Opelka

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 68.7% ±2.3 raw 70.1% · tour 63.4% · 4,440 points
Return points won 31.6% ±2.4 raw 27.6% · tour 36.6% · 4,217 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 −0.19 ±0.11 better than 16% of ATP · raw −0.18
Shot selection +0.14 ±0.11 better than 69% of ATP · raw +0.15
Execution −1.23 ±0.68 better than 18% of ATP · raw −1.13
Tactical adaptability +0.17 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 51 matches
Adaptation speed +0.10 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.88 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 25% 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 16,477 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Reilly Opelka 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 · 751 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 43.9%±5.5 51.5%
FH crosscourt 19% 48.5%±6.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 16% 44.5%±7.0 47.0%
BH through the middle 15% 33.1%±6.7 46.8%
BH crosscourt 10% 40.7%±8.4 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 38.7%±10.7 48.3%
BH slice through the middle 4% 37.9%±11.3 44.8%
FH down the line + approach 2% 66.0%±13.8 70.5%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 527 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 42.5%±5.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 29.4%±5.5 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 41.6%±9.1 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 7% 33.4%±10.3 35.1%
FH inside-out 5% 43.3%±11.9 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 30.8%±11.1 42.5%
BH slice down the line 2% 33.6%±14.0 37.1%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 502 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 20% 44.9%±7.5 52.4%
FH through the middle 20% 35.0%±7.2 46.5%
FH down the line 19% 43.4%±7.6 51.8%
BH through the middle 14% 40.3%±8.5 46.5%
BH crosscourt 9% 37.1%±9.9 48.7%
BH down the line 6% 41.0%±11.7 48.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 38.4%±11.8 43.3%
BH slice down the line 3% 44.8%±14.2 43.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 429 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 28% 43.2%±6.8 46.9%
BH through the middle 26% 30.2%±6.6 43.0%
BH down the line 18% 39.0%±8.1 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 10% 26.6%±9.2 32.6%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 33.0%±11.1 40.9%
FH inside-out 4% 54.7%±13.1 51.7%
BH slice down the line 4% 24.1%±11.7 33.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Reilly Opelka's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 257 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 57% 77% / 73%
Body 9% 7% 62% / 63%
T 41% 36% 80% / 75%

2,261 normal · 58 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 51% 82% / 73%
Body 7% 8% 61% / 63%
T 44% 41% 77% / 72%

1,882 normal · 199 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
Wide50% 71.1%±2.2 n=1,167 63% ▲
Body9% 60.6%±5.2 n=212 0% ▼
T41% 68.8%±2.4 n=940 37% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.002): serve wide more. Gap 1.9 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 72.2%±2.3 n=1,013 62% ▲
Body7% 59.7%±6.0 n=149 0% ▼
T44% 71.8%±2.4 n=919 38% ▼

Off equilibrium (p < 0.001): serve wide more. Gap 1.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.85 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: +2.1±2.5 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. (2,351 repeats, 1,935 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 156 28% −9.0±5.4
1stAd courtT 503 20% −8.4±2.8
1stAd courtWide 595 19% −8.5±2.6
1stDeuce courtBody 189 30% −6.6±5.1
1stDeuce courtT 572 17% −8.2±2.5
1stDeuce courtWide 688 20% −7.4±2.4
2ndAd courtBody 264 41% −7.9±4.7
2ndAd courtT 127 43% −6.1±6.5
2ndAd courtWide 328 45% −3.8±4.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 302 41% −8.1±4.4
2ndDeuce courtT 275 45% −4.5±4.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 175 42% −5.9±5.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 58% · −16.5±7.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 54% · −20.1±7.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 48% · −26.7±6.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 8.0% · won 31% · +0.6±4.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 30% · −0.3±5.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 3.4% · won 29% · −1.1±6.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 29% · −1.4±7.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 24% · −5.5±7.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 48% · +8.6±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 45% · +5.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 44% · +5.0±8.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 43% · +4.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 42% · +3.2±7.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → BH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 56% · +14.0±11.4 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nick Kyrgios (5/6)
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 56% · +14.1±12.6 vs own baseline · +15.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH through the middle used 0.2% · won 54% · +11.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +25.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by John Isner (8/8)
  4. T serve → FH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 54% · +11.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +19.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 47% · +5.6±10.8 vs own baseline · +0.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 47% · +5.3±11.4 vs own baseline · −2.7 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

T 1st serve · ad court+7.3899
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+5.61,136
Wide 1st serve · ad court+4.5990
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+4.4431
T 1st serve · deuce court+4.2917

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · return−3.2133
BH to their backhand · return +1−2.9171
T 1st serve · deuce court−2.6895
BH to their forehand · rally−2.3239
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.3159

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.77, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.55, Jack Draper +1.47, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.38, Casper Ruud +1.26

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan −2.11, Pedro Martinez −2.24, Miomir Kecmanovic −2.33, Roberto Carballes Baena −2.39, Roberto Bautista Agut −2.40

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Miomir Kecmanovic, Andy Murray, Joao Fonseca, Bernard Tomic, Albert Ramos

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot17.6%
Point-ending shots35.1%
FH down the line38%
Forehand share59%
1st serve in66%
Wide serves · deuce50%
T serves · ad44%
Deep returns32%
Through the middle26%
Run-around forehands21%
BH down the line21%
Serve & volley9%
Backhand slice21%
Wide serves · ad49%
Points at net10%
Chipped returns12%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
T serves · deuce41%
Avg rally length2.9

Plays most like

  1. John Isner 2009–2023 plan v
  2. Nicolas Jarry 2019–2025 plan v
  3. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 2024–2026 plan v
  4. Lukas Rosol 2012–2019 plan v
  5. Sam Querrey 2010–2022 plan v
  6. Arthur Rinderknech 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Zhizhen Zhang 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Mario Ancic 2002–2008
  2. Mark Philippoussis 1995–2003
  3. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011

Charted matches