RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 36 charted matches · 1995–2006

Tim Henman

Archetype: Serve-and-volleyer · Net rusher (6)

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.3% ±2.6 raw 63.6% · tour 63.4% · 3,730 points
Return points won 38.8% ±2.7 raw 32.5% · tour 36.6% · 3,590 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 ±0.11 better than 80% of ATP · raw +0.09
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.21 better than 56% of ATP · raw +0.02
Execution −1.47 ±0.39 better than 10% of ATP · raw −1.60
Tactical adaptability +0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 34 matches
Adaptation speed −0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.76 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 5% 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 14,594 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tim Henman 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 · 486 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 33% 35.1%±5.9 42.5%
BH crosscourt 13% 36.3%±8.6 47.6%
FH inside-out 10% 49.1%±9.8 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 9% 42.9%±10.3 35.1%
BH slice down the line 9% 29.7%±9.5 37.1%
BH through the middle 8% 33.5%±10.1 43.7%
BH down the line 6% 41.0%±11.8 46.4%
FH inside-in 5% 52.0%±12.1 54.7%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 297 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 40.9%±6.6 46.6%
FH down the line 23% 36.7%±8.5 44.7%
FH through the middle 22% 34.5%±8.5 41.5%
FH down the line + approach 8% 57.5%±12.1 69.3%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 290 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 30% 30.7%±7.3 40.9%
BH crosscourt 16% 38.5%±9.9 46.9%
BH through the middle 14% 38.1%±10.1 43.0%
BH slice through the middle 12% 31.8%±10.3 32.6%
BH down the line 10% 30.9%±11.0 44.2%
BH slice down the line 6% 32.4%±12.8 33.3%
FH inside-out 5% 43.8%±13.8 51.7%
BH slice crosscourt + approach 4% 49.1%±14.3 45.9%

Serve +1: drive to your middle, you at net

position worth 61% to the average player · 241 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH volley crosscourt 32% 70.4%±7.7 62.9%
FH volley crosscourt 21% 69.6%±9.0 68.7%
FH volley down the line 17% 66.3%±10.0 63.8%
BH volley through the middle 12% 53.4%±11.8 43.2%
FH volley through the middle 11% 47.5%±12.0 46.6%
BH volley down the line 8% 54.2%±13.0 58.4%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Tim Henman's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 303 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 48% 76% / 73%
Body 11% 13% 64% / 63%
T 44% 39% 77% / 75%

1,827 normal · 84 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 52% 73% / 73%
Body 15% 15% 62% / 63%
T 39% 33% 73% / 72%

1,539 normal · 219 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
Wide45% 63.5%±2.6 n=866 43% ▼
Body11% 62.3%±5.2 n=203 0% ▼
T44% 65.1%±2.7 n=842 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.61).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 64.1%±2.7 n=818 60% ▲
Body15% 58.2%±4.7 n=268 2% ▼
T38% 62.5%±3.0 n=672 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 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: +0.1±2.6 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. (1,246 repeats, 2,351 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 112 30% −7.3±6.3
1stAd courtT 378 25% −3.4±3.5
1stAd courtWide 529 24% −2.9±3.0
1stDeuce courtBody 126 35% −2.1±6.3
1stDeuce courtT 455 21% −4.3±3.0
1stDeuce courtWide 473 24% −3.3±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 209 46% −3.0±5.3
2ndAd courtT 112 50% +0.6±6.9
2ndAd courtWide 340 43% −5.5±4.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 269 43% −6.0±4.7
2ndDeuce courtT 319 48% −2.2±4.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 203 46% −2.0±5.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.2% · won 74% · +5.8±7.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.7% · won 63% · −5.1±7.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 41% · +9.3±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 3.4% · won 39% · +7.4±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, short used 3.0% · won 38% · +5.5±7.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, short used 2.1% · won 32% · +0.3±8.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 28% · −3.6±7.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.5% · won 47% · +8.5±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 46% · +8.0±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 3.0% · won 44% · +5.8±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 2.5% · won 43% · +4.3±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 42% · +3.3±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → BH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 0.4% · won 62% · +16.7±12.0 vs own baseline · +25.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → FH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 0.3% · won 61% · +15.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +15.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → BH slice crosscourt return, mid → FH inside-out used 0.3% · won 57% · +11.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefan Edberg (4/6)
  4. Body serve → BH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +9.4±11.8 vs own baseline · +7.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH inside-in used 0.3% · won 55% · +9.0±12.8 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lleyton Hewitt (2/6)
  6. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH slice through the middle used 0.3% · won 54% · +7.9±13.0 vs own baseline · +32.5 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 slice to their backhand · serve +1+3.8154
BH volley to the middle · serve +1+3.4120
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.8277
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.7197
BH volley to their backhand · serve +1+1.9320

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−2.4404
FH to their backhand · return−2.1325
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.2265
BH to their backhand · return−0.8611
Body 2nd serve · ad court−0.8209

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Adrian Andreev, Alex Molcan, Rafael Nadal, Hugo Gaston, Daniel Evans

Tactical fingerprint

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

Backhand slice58%
Chipped returns42%
Points at net26%
Serve & volley52%
Point-ending shots33.6%
BH down the line29%
Run-around forehands27%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
FH down the line33%
Wide serves · deuce45%
Forehand share53%
T serves · ad38%
T serves · deuce44%
Wide serves · ad47%
1st serve in58%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
Deep returns20%
Through the middle19%
Avg rally length3.0

Plays most like

  1. Mark Philippoussis 1995–2003 plan v
  2. Boris Becker 1985–1999 plan v
  3. Greg Rusedski 1993–2005 plan v
  4. Pete Sampras 1990–2002 plan v
  5. Patrick Rafter 1993–2001 plan v
  6. Gilles Muller 2005–2017 plan v
  7. Richard Krajicek 1992–2000 plan v
  8. Brad Gilbert 1987–1994 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. John Mcenroe 1978–1992
  2. Kevin King 2019–2019
  3. Steve Johnson 2015–2022

Charted matches