RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 12 charted matches · 2014–2021

Tennys Sandgren

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.4% ±3.3 raw 63.3% · tour 63.4% · 1,143 points
Return points won 35.7% ±3.3 raw 33.2% · tour 36.6% · 1,127 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 −0.09 ±0.15 better than 34% of ATP · raw −0.08
Shot selection −0.45 ±0.14 better than 13% of ATP · raw −0.45
Execution −0.92 ±0.57 better than 27% of ATP · raw −0.86
Tactical adaptability +0.15 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.16 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 58% 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 5,765 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tennys Sandgren 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 · 303 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 41.1%±7.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 46.7%±7.7 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 47.8%±11.1 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 27.7%±10.7 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 45.6%±14.1 42.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 235 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 50% 42.3%±6.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 26% 39.4%±8.9 41.5%
FH down the line 13% 43.9%±11.5 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 11% 30.9%±11.3 24.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 227 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 53.8%±9.1 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 41.9%±10.2 47.0%
FH down the line 19% 40.2%±10.2 51.5%
BH through the middle 17% 53.2%±10.7 46.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 46.6%±11.7 49.1%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 184 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 50.1%±8.0 48.0%
BH through the middle 28% 41.9%±9.6 43.8%
BH down the line 8% 52.3%±13.9 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 41.4%±14.8 42.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Tennys Sandgren's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 123 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 65% ▲ 72% / 73%
Body 5% 6% 67% / 63%
T 43% 29% ▼ 77% / 75%

557 normal · 31 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 58% 72% / 73%
Body 11% 12% 57% / 63%
T 33% 30% 70% / 72%

455 normal · 92 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
Wide53% 62.4%±4.3 n=311 45% ▼
Body5% 65.0%±10.1 n=30 0% ▼
T42% 66.0%±4.7 n=247 55% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.60).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide57% 62.7%±4.3 n=310 55% ▼
Body11% 58.4%±8.5 n=61 0% ▼
T32% 63.0%±5.5 n=176 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.60).
Optimal mix: +0.5 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: +0.5±6.3 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. (522 repeats, 589 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 34 33% −4.0±9.7
1stAd courtT 143 29% +0.5±5.6
1stAd courtWide 159 22% −4.9±5.0
1stDeuce courtBody 35 37% +0.2±9.8
1stDeuce courtT 128 22% −2.6±5.5
1stDeuce courtWide 174 25% −2.1±5.0
2ndAd courtBody 80 53% +4.1±7.8
2ndAd courtT 33 49% −0.4±10.4
2ndAd courtWide 88 42% −6.4±7.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 107 43% −6.2±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 90 47% −3.1±7.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 53 46% −1.8±9.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 66% · −2.5±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 65% · −3.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 63% · −5.2±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.8% · won 61% · −7.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 60% · −8.1±11.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, short used 4.6% · won 49% · +14.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 6.1% · won 40% · +4.9±10.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.4% · won 38% · +3.4±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.3% · won 37% · +2.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.4% · won 36% · +1.3±11.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.8% · won 51% · +5.1±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.7% · won 52% · +6.5±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 51% · +5.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 49% · +3.7±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.6% · won 49% · +3.0±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 Tennys Sandgren wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +5.5±13.0 vs own baseline · +14.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 47% · +2.0±9.2 vs own baseline · −0.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (2/6), Andy Murray (5/12)
  3. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 48% · +3.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Fabio Fognini (4/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 45% · −0.1±12.2 vs own baseline · −5.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Fabio Fognini (4/7)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 45% · −0.3±10.3 vs own baseline · −3.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrey Rublev (3/7), Roger Federer (6/10)
  6. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 45% · −0.6±12.8 vs own baseline · −2.4 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 forehand · return+3.6124
T 1st serve · ad court+1.7176
BH to their forehand · rally+1.4121
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.3311
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.0247

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · return−0.7184
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.6186
FH to their backhand · rally−0.2307
BH to their backhand · rally−0.1237
FH to the middle · rally+0.2195

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roman Safiullin, Tomas Machac, Miomir Kecmanovic, Roberto Bautista Agut, Tommy Paul

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce53%
Through the middle30%
Wide serves · ad57%
Chipped returns24%
1st serve in64%
Forehand share54%
Avg rally length4.1
Backhand slice22%
Unforced errors / shot9.9%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Run-around forehands17%
Deep returns25%
Points at net9%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce42%
Point-ending shots21.1%
BH down the line15%
T serves · ad32%
FH down the line25%

Plays most like

  1. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  2. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v
  3. Luca Nardi 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Brandon Nakashima 2020–2026 plan v
  5. Dusan Lajovic 2014–2025 plan v
  6. Radu Albot 2016–2024 plan v
  7. Casper Ruud 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  2. Andrei Medvedev 1992–2000
  3. Magnus Norman 2000–2001

Charted matches