RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2021–2023

Tim Van Rijthoven

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 68.3% ±2.9 raw 70.7% · tour 63.4% · 1,357 points
Return points won 35.3% ±3.0 raw 30.8% · tour 36.6% · 1,398 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 −0.02 ±0.06 better than 52% of ATP · raw −0.01
Shot selection −0.41 ±0.13 better than 16% of ATP · raw −0.40
Execution −1.17 ±0.75 better than 20% of ATP · raw −1.04
Tactical adaptability −0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 14 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.62 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 47% 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 5,671 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tim Van Rijthoven 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 · 294 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 24% 42.8%±8.6 47.6%
BH slice crosscourt 21% 35.5%±8.6 42.5%
BH through the middle 20% 31.7%±8.7 43.7%
BH slice through the middle 10% 35.5%±11.4 35.1%
FH inside-out 9% 54.0%±12.0 51.8%
BH slice down the line 5% 49.7%±13.9 37.1%
FH inside-in 5% 55.7%±14.0 54.7%
BH down the line 4% 39.6%±14.4 46.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 220 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 44.0%±9.2 51.5%
FH crosscourt 25% 52.0%±9.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 38.4%±10.2 47.0%
BH through the middle 7% 45.5%±13.7 46.8%
BH slice through the middle 6% 51.4%±14.3 44.8%
BH crosscourt 6% 44.9%±14.2 49.1%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 45.0%±14.5 47.0%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 177 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 33% 42.0%±9.1 40.9%
BH through the middle 23% 35.4%±10.1 43.0%
BH crosscourt 23% 44.0%±10.5 46.9%
BH slice through the middle 14% 35.3%±11.8 32.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 173 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 27% 44.6%±10.1 42.1%
BH crosscourt 21% 46.7%±10.9 48.0%
BH through the middle 16% 43.3%±11.8 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 37.6%±12.9 46.5%
FH inside-out 8% 50.1%±14.3 52.6%
BH slice through the middle 8% 36.4%±13.8 35.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Tim Van Rijthoven's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 88 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 65% ▲ 78% / 73%
Body 6% 0% 63% / 63%
T 51% 35% ▼ 82% / 75%

698 normal · 20 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 54% 81% / 73%
Body 6% 4% 66% / 63%
T 40% 41% 74% / 72%

569 normal · 68 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
Wide43% 71.5%±4.0 n=311 36% ▼
Body6% 62.8%±9.4 n=41 0% ▼
T51% 75.5%±3.6 n=366 64% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.014): serve T more. Gap 2.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 68.9%±3.9 n=346 67% ▲
Body6% 69.3%±9.3 n=36 0% ▼
T40% 67.7%±4.6 n=255 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.93).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.66 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: +0.6±4.5 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. (775 repeats, 550 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 56 41% +3.8±8.7
1stAd courtT 163 22% −5.5±4.9
1stAd courtWide 208 27% −0.3±4.7
1stDeuce courtBody 83 33% −4.0±7.3
1stDeuce courtT 213 21% −3.9±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 183 22% −5.0±4.7
2ndAd courtBody 87 44% −5.1±7.6
2ndAd courtT 23 43% −6.3±11.2
2ndAd courtWide 121 43% −5.6±6.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 113 46% −3.1±6.9
2ndDeuce courtT 109 43% −6.6±6.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 38 43% −4.8±9.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-in used 2.1% · won 70% · −9.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 69% · −10.6±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 69% · −10.2±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 71% · −8.8±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 66% · −13.7±10.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 43% · +10.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.4% · won 41% · +8.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.4% · won 39% · +6.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 36% · +4.2±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 36% · +3.7±11.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.0% · won 49% · +7.4±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.5% · won 47% · +4.8±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 46% · +3.7±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 45% · +3.4±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 44% · +1.4±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 Tim Van Rijthoven 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 crosscourt used 1.5% · won 49% · +2.7±10.6 vs own baseline · +2.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (3/8), Daniil Medvedev (4/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.7% · won 43% · −3.6±12.7 vs own baseline · −7.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 0.8% · won 42% · −4.3±12.3 vs own baseline · −5.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (0/6)

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 · serve +1+2.9229
T 1st serve · deuce court+2.1357
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.2188
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.9300
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.7337

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · rally−0.9137
T 1st serve · ad court−0.7242
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−0.4120
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.1272
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.8322

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Raphael Collignon, Jack Draper, Pedro Martinez, Thiago Monteiro

Tactical fingerprint

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

Chipped returns33%
Backhand slice42%
Unforced errors / shot12.8%
Point-ending shots30.0%
Deep returns35%
Forehand share58%
Run-around forehands28%
T serves · deuce51%
1st serve in64%
Wide serves · ad54%
Drop shots / shot1.9%
Through the middle26%
T serves · ad40%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Serve & volley4%
Points at net10%
FH down the line28%
BH down the line17%
Avg rally length3.2

Plays most like

  1. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Matteo Berrettini 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Tallon Griekspoor 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Vasek Pospisil 2013–2023 plan v
  5. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Denis Shapovalov 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Roger Federer 1998–2021 plan v
  8. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010
  2. James Blake 2002–2011
  3. Tommy Haas 1996–2017

Charted matches