RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 31 charted matches · 2020–2026

Tomas Machac

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.6% ±2.7 raw 62.8% · tour 63.4% · 2,590 points
Return points won 39.1% ±2.8 raw 35.7% · tour 36.6% · 2,434 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 +0.12 ±0.07 better than 83% of ATP · raw +0.12
Shot selection +0.08 ±0.15 better than 63% of ATP · raw +0.08
Execution +0.15 ±0.51 better than 75% of ATP · raw +0.14
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 29 matches
Adaptation speed −0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.35 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 79% 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 11,998 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tomas Machac 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 · 703 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 47.8%±4.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 44.4%±6.0 43.7%
BH down the line 15% 42.0%±7.4 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 43.6%±11.9 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 3% 31.0%±11.7 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 31.8%±12.3 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 574 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 24% 54.9%±6.5 51.5%
BH crosscourt 22% 45.2%±6.7 49.1%
FH crosscourt 18% 50.8%±7.4 52.7%
BH through the middle 12% 54.8%±8.6 46.8%
FH through the middle 11% 43.5%±8.8 47.0%
BH down the line 7% 44.4%±10.6 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 64.9%±14.1 70.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 481 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 36% 45.8%±5.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 27% 41.8%±6.6 41.5%
FH down the line 23% 44.6%±7.2 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 33.8%±11.4 24.5%
FH slice down the line 5% 37.5%±12.1 25.6%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 375 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 39.5%±5.7 46.9%
BH through the middle 20% 42.1%±8.4 43.0%
BH down the line 15% 49.8%±9.4 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 35.1%±11.2 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 7% 30.2%±10.9 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Tomas Machac's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 212 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 40% 67% / 73%
Body 6% 6% 62% / 63%
T 49% 54% 74% / 75%

1,294 normal · 50 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 52% 70% / 73%
Body 8% 8% 64% / 63%
T 47% 40% 72% / 72%

1,071 normal · 162 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
Wide44% 59.7%±3.2 n=596 38% ▼
Body6% 59.6%±7.5 n=86 0% ▼
T49% 66.0%±3.0 n=662 62% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.033): serve T more. Gap 3.2 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 61.7%±3.3 n=570 41% ▼
Body8% 61.3%±7.1 n=96 0% ▼
T46% 64.5%±3.2 n=567 59% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.53).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.62 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: +3.9±2.9 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. (1,026 repeats, 1,489 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 35 40% +3.2±10.0
1stAd courtT 264 32% +4.4±4.5
1stAd courtWide 379 29% +2.1±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 57 34% −2.2±8.4
1stDeuce courtT 368 22% −3.1±3.4
1stDeuce courtWide 372 26% −1.3±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 151 45% −4.7±6.1
2ndAd courtT 94 56% +7.0±7.3
2ndAd courtWide 227 45% −3.8±5.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 165 45% −3.5±5.9
2ndDeuce courtT 191 52% +2.3±5.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 120 50% +2.2±6.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 65% · −1.2±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 62% · −4.0±8.4 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 62% · −4.3±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.8% · won 62% · −4.0±6.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 61% · −5.8±8.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.9% · won 53% · +12.2±9.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.6% · won 51% · +10.7±8.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.3% · won 51% · +10.1±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 47% · +6.5±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.2% · won 46% · +5.6±10.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 53% · +6.6±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 1.5% · won 54% · +7.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.9% · won 53% · +6.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 51% · +4.4±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 53% · +6.7±10.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, deep → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 64% · +14.4±11.7 vs own baseline · +36.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (5/6)
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +8.4±10.9 vs own baseline · +16.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Mariano Navone (10/14)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +8.5±11.6 vs own baseline · +12.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 59% · +9.2±12.1 vs own baseline · +21.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 54% · +4.9±8.6 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (7/11)
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 57% · +7.6±11.8 vs own baseline · +10.6 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+4.9161
FH to the middle · return+2.8350
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.5256
BH to the middle · return +1+1.4135
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.4233

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · serve +1−3.5358
FH to their backhand · return−3.4177
BH to their forehand · rally−3.3324
FH to their forehand · return−3.2244
BH to the middle · serve +1−2.4186

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.59, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.28, Jack Draper +2.22, Nishesh Basavareddy +2.05, Casper Ruud +2.04

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.63, Fabian Marozsan +1.63, Pedro Martinez +1.55, Alexander Shevchenko +1.44, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.39

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Brandon Nakashima, Rinky Hijikata, Thiago Seyboth Wild, Jannik Sinner

Tactical fingerprint

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

FH down the line39%
T serves · ad46%
T serves · deuce49%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
Deep returns31%
Point-ending shots26.7%
Wide serves · deuce44%
1st serve in62%
BH down the line19%
Points at net10%
Serve & volley3%
Avg rally length3.8
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Through the middle23%
Chipped returns10%
Wide serves · ad46%
Backhand slice11%
Forehand share49%
Run-around forehands8%

Plays most like

  1. Benjamin Bonzi 2021–2025 plan v
  2. Viktor Troicki 2009–2021 plan v
  3. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  5. Sebastian Korda 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
  7. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  8. Hubert Hurkacz 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014
  3. Marat Safin 1998–2009

Charted matches