RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 1993–2001

Thomas Enqvist

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.3% ±3.3 raw 65.2% · tour 63.4% · 1,375 points
Return points won 39.1% ±3.4 raw 37.3% · tour 36.6% · 1,447 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 +0.16 ±0.14 better than 90% of ATP · raw +0.16
Shot selection −0.49 ±0.18 better than 11% of ATP · raw −0.49
Execution −0.02 ±0.73 better than 67% of ATP · raw −0.02
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.26 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 87% 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 6,469 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Thomas Enqvist 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 · 370 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 52% 47.0%±5.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 49.7%±9.0 43.7%
BH down the line 10% 56.6%±10.8 46.4%
FH inside-out 7% 37.8%±11.8 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 51.3%±13.3 42.5%
FH inside-in 4% 61.6%±13.7 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 3% 37.6%±14.1 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 221 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 53.3%±9.3 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 46.5%±10.3 51.5%
FH through the middle 16% 40.7%±10.9 47.0%
BH through the middle 14% 43.9%±11.4 46.8%
BH crosscourt 11% 51.9%±12.4 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 6% 68.0%±13.2 70.5%
BH down the line 5% 48.8%±15.0 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 219 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 49% 49.1%±7.3 46.6%
FH down the line 28% 46.3%±9.1 44.7%
FH through the middle 23% 39.0%±9.6 41.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 205 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 53% 43.1%±7.2 48.0%
BH through the middle 17% 41.4%±10.9 43.8%
BH down the line 12% 46.1%±12.4 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 39.5%±13.8 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 5% 26.7%±13.3 35.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Thomas Enqvist's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 98 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 46% 71% / 73%
Body 8% 8% 63% / 63%
T 44% 46% 79% / 75%

690 normal · 24 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 32% ▼ 81% / 73%
Body 10% 14% 67% / 63%
T 48% 54% 74% / 72%

570 normal · 74 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% 66.6%±4.0 n=344 51% ▲
Body8% 59.1%±8.8 n=55 0% ▼
T44% 66.7%±4.2 n=315 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.22).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide41% 67.2%±4.5 n=262 54% ▲
Body10% 65.7%±8.0 n=66 0% ▼
T49% 61.2%±4.3 n=316 46% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.22).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: +3.2±4.0 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. (504 repeats, 824 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 39 35% −2.1±9.4
1stAd courtT 145 25% −3.2±5.4
1stAd courtWide 185 28% +1.2±5.1
1stDeuce courtBody 39 35% −1.9±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 183 22% −2.8±4.7
1stDeuce courtWide 219 26% −1.0±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 105 52% +3.1±7.1
2ndAd courtT 54 43% −6.7±8.9
2ndAd courtWide 157 49% +1.1±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 119 56% +6.5±6.7
2ndDeuce courtT 109 58% +8.5±6.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 78 44% −4.2±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 72% · −0.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 66% · −6.0±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line used 2.7% · won 64% · −8.4±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 63% · −9.2±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 62% · −10.1±10.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.9% · won 51% · +11.4±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.7% · won 49% · +9.7±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.1% · won 51% · +11.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 55% · +15.0±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 50% · +10.2±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 54% · +7.5±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.5% · won 52% · +5.7±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 52% · +5.5±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 3.1% · won 50% · +3.4±10.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.3% · won 50% · +3.4±11.4 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.4% · won 56% · +6.6±10.0 vs own baseline · +12.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andre Agassi (3/8), Roger Federer (4/7)
  2. FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 59% · +9.7±12.4 vs own baseline · +20.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH slice down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 59% · +9.7±12.4 vs own baseline · +19.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Body serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +8.7±12.6 vs own baseline · +21.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 56% · +7.1±12.2 vs own baseline · +6.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (3/6)
  6. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +5.9±12.1 vs own baseline · +14.7 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

BH to their backhand · return +1+2.0143
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.9344
BH to their backhand · return+0.7266
T 1st serve · ad court+0.6316
BH to their backhand · serve +1+0.5221

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · serve +1−2.0125
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.3143
T 1st serve · ad court−1.2278
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.2327
BH slice to their backhand · rally−1.1160

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Nishesh Basavareddy, Alex Michelsen, Jaume Munar, Jenson Brooksby, Pedro Martinez

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad49%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Point-ending shots27.6%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
BH down the line22%
FH down the line31%
T serves · deuce44%
Run-around forehands16%
Serve & volley3%
Backhand slice14%
Points at net8%
Avg rally length3.5
Chipped returns4%
Through the middle20%
Drop shots / shot0.0%
Deep returns17%
Forehand share46%
Wide serves · ad41%
1st serve in54%

Plays most like

  1. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002 plan v
  2. Thomas Johansson 1996–2005 plan v
  3. Tomas Berdych 2005–2019 plan v
  4. Nicolas Kiefer 1999–2008 plan v
  5. Frances Tiafoe 2016–2026 plan v
  6. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  7. Tomas Machac 2020–2026 plan v
  8. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Tomas Berdych 2005–2019
  2. Frances Tiafoe 2016–2026
  3. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025

Charted matches