RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 12 charted matches · 2023–2026

Rinky Hijikata

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.9% ±3.4 raw 59.6% · tour 63.4% · 1,047 points
Return points won 38.8% ±3.4 raw 35.2% · tour 36.6% · 1,021 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 +0.05 ±0.09 better than 70% of ATP · raw +0.05
Shot selection +0.25 ±0.27 better than 75% of ATP · raw +0.26
Execution −0.22 ±0.71 better than 57% of ATP · raw −0.11
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.08 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.53 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 57% 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 5,039 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Rinky Hijikata 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 · 304 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 48.7%±7.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 41.4%±9.1 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 50.0%±9.8 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 8% 36.4%±11.9 35.1%
FH inside-out 8% 47.4%±12.5 51.8%
BH down the line 7% 44.6%±12.8 46.4%
BH slice down the line 4% 32.5%±13.6 37.1%
FH inside-in 4% 49.8%±14.5 54.7%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 195 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 35.8%±8.2 46.6%
FH through the middle 31% 31.2%±8.5 41.5%
FH down the line 19% 39.6%±10.6 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 21.6%±12.0 24.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 189 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 24% 48.9%±10.1 51.5%
FH crosscourt 21% 46.7%±10.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 15% 35.5%±11.2 47.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 51.8%±12.1 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 41.7%±12.2 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 43.2%±14.6 47.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 189 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 29% 56.2%±9.5 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 48.8%±10.5 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 20% 40.4%±10.6 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 10% 41.1%±13.0 35.1%
BH down the line 7% 55.4%±14.2 46.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Rinky Hijikata's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 108 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 52% 67% / 73%
Body 9% 3% 53% / 63%
T 43% 45% 69% / 75%

509 normal · 33 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 49% 77% / 73%
Body 5% 8% 63% / 63%
T 44% 43% 72% / 72%

425 normal · 75 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
Wide48% 60.5%±4.7 n=261 61% ▲
Body8% 49.1%±9.4 n=46 0% ▼
T43% 56.8%±5.0 n=235 39% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.08).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide50% 64.1%±4.7 n=251 63% ▲
Body6% 56.8%±10.7 n=28 0% ▼
T44% 59.9%±5.1 n=221 37% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.29).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.47 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: −1.0±5.0 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. (401 repeats, 617 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 11 42% +4.7±12.7
1stAd courtT 144 26% −2.5±5.4
1stAd courtWide 139 25% −2.3±5.5
1stDeuce courtBody 27 35% −1.6±10.4
1stDeuce courtT 154 29% +4.0±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 169 25% −2.5±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 44 43% −6.4±9.5
2ndAd courtT 44 51% +1.8±9.6
2ndAd courtWide 104 50% +2.0±7.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 58 54% +5.2±8.7
2ndDeuce courtT 65 45% −4.5±8.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 51 52% +4.3±9.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 69% · +4.5±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.9% · won 65% · +0.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 3.7% · won 63% · −1.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 60% · −4.5±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 59% · −4.9±11.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 58% · +16.1±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 6.0% · won 49% · +7.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.7% · won 49% · +7.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.8% · won 48% · +6.5±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 4.7% · won 47% · +5.4±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 52% · +6.5±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 3.3% · won 50% · +4.9±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.2% · won 48% · +3.2±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 45% · −0.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 44% · −1.3±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, deep → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 52% · +4.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +14.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.0% · won 50% · +2.5±11.6 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Zhizhen Zhang (3/6)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 49% · +1.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 0.6% · won 48% · +1.2±12.9 vs own baseline · +8.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.7% · won 41% · −5.7±12.4 vs own baseline · −11.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 40% · −7.1±11.8 vs own baseline · −17.0 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

FH to their backhand · serve +1+3.0173
FH to their forehand · serve +1+3.0153
BH to the middle · return+2.0173
BH slice to their backhand · rally+1.9129
BH to their backhand · rally+1.7208

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−2.8202
BH to their backhand · return−2.5149
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.8252
FH to the middle · return−1.7230
T 1st serve · ad court−1.5211

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.08, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.95, Jack Draper +1.81, Casper Ruud +1.68, Pedro Martinez +1.66

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +1.82, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.77, Pedro Martinez +1.69, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.60, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.54

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Cameron Norrie, Daniil Medvedev, Dusan Lajovic, Ugo Humbert

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns36%
Through the middle28%
T serves · ad44%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Backhand slice27%
FH down the line33%
Run-around forehands23%
Wide serves · ad50%
Point-ending shots23.5%
Forehand share53%
Avg rally length3.8
Serve & volley4%
T serves · deuce43%
Unforced errors / shot9.4%
Points at net10%
BH down the line18%
1st serve in59%
Chipped returns9%
Drop shots / shot0.7%

Plays most like

  1. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  4. Jordan Thompson 2016–2025 plan v
  5. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  6. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  7. James Duckworth 2014–2026 plan v
  8. Dominic Thiem 2011–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  2. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  3. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011

Charted matches