RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 116 charted matches · 2018–2026

Tallon Griekspoor

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 66.5% ±2.3 raw 65.5% · tour 63.4% · 9,953 points
Return points won 35.3% ±2.4 raw 32.5% · tour 36.6% · 9,599 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 ±0.03 better than 93% of ATP · raw +0.19
Shot selection +0.07 ±0.08 better than 61% of ATP · raw +0.08
Execution −1.38 ±0.28 better than 13% of ATP · raw −1.27
Tactical adaptability +0.28 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 111 matches
Adaptation speed +0.30 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.28 ±0.53 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 3,370 shots · better than 37% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.42 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 71% 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 43,979 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tallon Griekspoor 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 · 2,498 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 43.6%±2.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 18% 37.1%±3.6 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 15% 36.5%±4.0 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 9% 33.1%±4.9 35.1%
FH inside-out 6% 49.6%±6.3 51.8%
BH down the line 5% 37.0%±6.6 46.4%
FH inside-in 5% 53.3%±7.1 54.7%
BH slice down the line 2% 33.4%±9.3 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,604 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 52.8%±3.6 52.7%
FH down the line 17% 39.3%±4.7 51.5%
FH through the middle 12% 45.7%±5.6 47.0%
BH crosscourt 11% 42.5%±5.7 49.1%
BH through the middle 9% 47.0%±6.3 46.8%
FH crosscourt + approach 4% 75.6%±7.8 69.9%
FH down the line + approach 4% 73.6%±8.2 70.5%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 40.6%±9.7 47.0%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,506 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 41.0%±2.9 46.6%
FH down the line 18% 42.7%±4.8 44.7%
FH through the middle 17% 37.6%±4.8 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 7% 20.1%±6.0 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 3% 69.9%±9.2 69.3%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 29.5%±9.3 30.9%
FH slice down the line 1% 29.8%±12.9 25.6%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,334 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 33% 41.9%±3.8 46.9%
BH slice crosscourt 22% 40.1%±4.6 40.9%
BH through the middle 17% 38.8%±5.1 43.0%
BH slice through the middle 12% 32.7%±5.8 32.6%
FH inside-out 5% 51.0%±8.8 51.7%
BH down the line 3% 35.7%±9.9 44.2%
FH inside-in 3% 45.3%±10.7 53.6%
BH slice down the line 2% 20.5%±9.2 33.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +9 How much less varied Tallon Griekspoor's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 730 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 58% ▲ 74% / 73%
Body 9% 3% 65% / 63%
T 43% 40% 77% / 75%

5,043 normal · 153 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 47% 76% / 73%
Body 9% 5% 60% / 63%
T 36% 48% ▲ 73% / 72%

4,164 normal · 577 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% 65.7%±1.6 n=2,502 44% ▼
Body8% 62.6%±3.7 n=440 0% ▼
T43% 66.9%±1.6 n=2,254 56% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 66.2%±1.5 n=2,566 67% ▲
Body9% 59.0%±3.8 n=417 0% ▼
T37% 64.5%±1.9 n=1,758 33% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve wide more. Gap 1.3 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.53 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±1.4 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. (4,168 repeats, 5,537 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 391 34% −3.2±3.8
1stAd courtT 1,116 26% −2.4±2.1
1stAd courtWide 1,304 23% −3.9±1.9
1stDeuce courtBody 437 36% −0.7±3.7
1stDeuce courtT 1,372 21% −4.1±1.8
1stDeuce courtWide 1,409 24% −2.8±1.9
2ndAd courtBody 717 44% −5.4±3.0
2ndAd courtT 291 48% −1.7±4.6
2ndAd courtWide 724 45% −3.3±3.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 720 44% −5.3±3.0
2ndDeuce courtT 756 49% −0.7±2.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 344 44% −4.1±4.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 59% · −9.4±5.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 58% · −10.6±5.2 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 56% · −12.2±4.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 54% · −14.5±5.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 47% · −21.3±5.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 45% · +10.5±4.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.9% · won 41% · +6.0±5.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.3% · won 41% · +6.2±5.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.2% · won 40% · +5.0±5.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 15% · −19.9±4.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 55% · +11.7±6.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 54% · +10.7±7.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 48% · +4.6±4.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 47% · +3.2±4.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 47% · +3.5±5.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line + approach → BH lob through the middle → Smash down the line used 0.2% · won 77% · +30.2±8.6 vs own baseline · +10.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (6/6)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 69% · +22.9±9.8 vs own baseline · +12.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 70% · +23.7±10.1 vs own baseline · +15.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line + approach → BH through the middle → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 68% · +21.3±10.5 vs own baseline · +12.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +12.9±8.4 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sebastian Baez (5/6)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 63% · +16.4±10.0 vs own baseline · +3.0 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

T 2nd serve · deuce court+0.9574
T 1st serve · ad court+0.61,758
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.52,254
BH slice to the middle · rally+0.5486
FH to the middle · return +1+0.5380

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.0692
Smash to their backhand · rally−1.9159
FH slice to the middle · return +1−1.8123
FH to the middle · return +1−1.6457
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.1709

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.16, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.94, Jack Draper +0.78, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.64, Pedro Martinez +0.63

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan ±0.00, Miomir Kecmanovic −0.08, Roberto Carballes Baena −0.23, Pedro Martinez −0.27, Roberto Bautista Agut −0.35

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands29%
Point-ending shots28.2%
Wide serves · deuce48%
1st serve in64%
Backhand slice30%
Deep returns32%
Wide serves · ad54%
Forehand share56%
Unforced errors / shot11.1%
Points at net13%
Chipped returns17%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Serve & volley7%
T serves · deuce43%
T serves · ad37%
Through the middle22%
Avg rally length3.5
FH down the line26%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Lloyd Harris 2019–2024 plan v
  3. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Leonardo Mayer 2014–2019 plan v
  6. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Arthur Fils 2023–2026 plan v
  8. Dominic Thiem 2011–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. James Blake 2002–2011
  2. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  3. Mario Ancic 2002–2008

Charted matches