RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 16 charted matches · 2019–2026

Thiago Seyboth Wild

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.4% ±2.9 raw 61.2% · tour 63.4% · 1,553 points
Return points won 36.5% ±2.9 raw 36.3% · tour 36.6% · 1,531 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 −0.07 ±0.10 better than 38% of ATP · raw −0.07
Shot selection +0.05 ±0.27 better than 59% of ATP · raw +0.06
Execution −0.65 ±0.44 better than 39% of ATP · raw −0.42
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed −0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.74 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 36% 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 7,652 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Thiago Seyboth Wild 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 · 533 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 32% 39.3%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 36.9%±6.5 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 47.0%±8.6 46.4%
FH inside-out 10% 49.8%±9.6 51.8%
FH inside-in 6% 59.5%±11.2 54.7%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 31.0%±10.8 42.5%
FH through the middle 2% 47.0%±14.5 45.2%
BH slice through the middle 2% 40.7%±14.3 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 348 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 50.8%±7.3 52.7%
FH down the line 30% 51.4%±7.4 51.5%
FH through the middle 14% 38.8%±9.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 9% 38.4%±11.0 46.8%
BH crosscourt 6% 56.7%±12.6 49.1%
BH down the line 4% 47.4%±14.3 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 335 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 46.5%±7.5 46.6%
FH down the line 29% 41.3%±7.5 44.7%
FH through the middle 27% 36.6%±7.6 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 8% 22.0%±10.2 24.5%
FH slice down the line 3% 19.8%±11.8 25.6%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 271 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 46.3%±7.8 46.9%
BH through the middle 33% 41.5%±7.7 43.0%
BH down the line 16% 44.2%±10.3 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 40.5%±13.6 40.9%
FH inside-out 6% 49.5%±13.9 51.7%
BH slice through the middle 4% 31.7%±14.0 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +17 How much less varied Thiago Seyboth Wild's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 159 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 55% 68% / 73%
Body 6% 0% 62% / 63%
T 45% 45% 71% / 75%

775 normal · 40 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 58% 64% 69% / 73%
Body 6% 2% 68% / 63%
T 37% 34% 70% / 72%

616 normal · 119 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
Wide49% 62.5%±3.8 n=400 62% ▲
Body6% 58.9%±9.2 n=48 0% ▼
T45% 60.6%±4.0 n=367 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.69).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide59% 59.1%±3.8 n=432 51% ▼
Body5% 65.8%±9.5 n=37 0% ▼
T36% 63.5%±4.6 n=266 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.25).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.33 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: +1.2±2.7 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. (683 repeats, 835 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 45 45% +8.5±9.5
1stAd courtT 174 30% +2.1±5.3
1stAd courtWide 256 25% −2.0±4.2
1stDeuce courtBody 62 45% +7.9±8.5
1stDeuce courtT 248 26% +1.4±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 211 25% −1.8±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 83 46% −3.5±7.7
2ndAd courtT 27 47% −2.3±10.9
2ndAd courtWide 144 53% +4.2±6.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 100 49% ±0.0±7.2
2ndDeuce courtT 105 49% −0.9±7.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 71 53% +4.8±8.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 67% · +2.5±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 67% · +2.0±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 66% · +1.0±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 61% · −4.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 61% · −4.0±9.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 51% · +11.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs body serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 52% · +12.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.6% · won 50% · +10.3±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 49% · +9.4±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.8% · won 50% · +10.3±11.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 52% · +9.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH down the line → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 50% · +6.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 49% · +5.9±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 46% · +3.3±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.9% · won 46% · +3.4±9.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +11.1±12.4 vs own baseline · +13.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 52% · +6.2±11.7 vs own baseline · +3.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gael Monfils (4/6)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 51% · +5.1±11.0 vs own baseline · +6.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nicolas Mejia (4/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 50% · +4.2±10.7 vs own baseline · −0.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gael Monfils (4/8), Paul Jubb (5/6)
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 51% · +5.3±12.7 vs own baseline · +1.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 50% · +4.2±12.6 vs own baseline · +6.7 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

FH to their backhand · serve +1+2.2359
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.3248
BH to the middle · rally+1.2271
FH to the middle · return+0.9254
BH to their backhand · rally+0.5264

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return−2.2252
FH to the middle · return−2.0256
FH to their forehand · rally−1.9403
FH to the middle · rally−1.7220
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.7163

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Miomir Kecmanovic +1.89, Rafael Nadal +1.81, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.65, Pedro Martinez +1.59, Casper Ruud +1.57

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.46, Fabian Marozsan +1.44, Pedro Martinez +1.32, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.25, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.20

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Miomir Kecmanovic, Casper Ruud, Zhizhen Zhang, Bernard Tomic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share61%
Wide serves · ad59%
Run-around forehands31%
Drop shots / shot2.8%
Wide serves · deuce49%
1st serve in64%
FH down the line33%
Unforced errors / shot11.0%
Through the middle26%
BH down the line22%
Point-ending shots25.5%
Deep returns29%
Avg rally length4.0
T serves · deuce45%
Chipped returns13%
Serve & volley2%
T serves · ad36%
Points at net8%
Backhand slice13%

Plays most like

  1. Aleksandar Vukic 2019–2025 plan v
  2. Lloyd Harris 2019–2024 plan v
  3. Joao Fonseca 2024–2026 plan v
  4. Dominic Thiem 2011–2024 plan v
  5. Hubert Hurkacz 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Juan Ignacio Londero 2019–2022 plan v
  8. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. Carlos Moya 1997–2007
  3. Magnus Norman 2000–2001

Charted matches