RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 24 charted matches · 2022–2026

Tomas Martin Etcheverry

Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.7% ±2.8 raw 63.0% · tour 63.4% · 1,963 points
Return points won 38.4% ±2.9 raw 36.7% · tour 36.6% · 2,082 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 −0.03 ±0.09 better than 49% of ATP · raw −0.02
Shot selection +0.41 ±0.17 better than 87% of ATP · raw +0.41
Execution +0.75 ±0.38 better than 90% of ATP · raw +0.80
Tactical adaptability +0.11 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 24 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −1.01 ±0.53 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,037 shots · better than 0% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.46 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 66% 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 11,854 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tomas Martin Etcheverry 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 · 1,047 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 41.9%±3.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 27% 41.6%±4.7 43.7%
FH inside-out 9% 55.0%±7.6 51.8%
FH inside-in 6% 59.2%±8.7 54.7%
BH down the line 6% 45.0%±8.9 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 41.3%±9.8 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 3% 40.8%±11.0 35.1%
FH through the middle 2% 40.6%±13.3 45.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 702 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 47.1%±4.6 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 34.3%±5.9 43.8%
FH inside-out 8% 56.0%±9.4 52.6%
BH down the line 7% 44.1%±9.7 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 51.3%±9.9 42.1%
FH inside-in 6% 53.6%±10.2 54.3%
BH slice through the middle 4% 31.2%±11.4 35.1%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 56.6%±14.6 47.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 584 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 40.3%±4.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 26% 40.9%±6.2 41.5%
FH down the line 20% 43.1%±6.9 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 4% 18.4%±9.7 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 27.5%±12.1 30.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 29.8%±12.9 25.6%
FH down the line + approach 2% 72.9%±13.4 69.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 541 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 57.7%±6.4 51.5%
FH crosscourt 26% 56.3%±6.5 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 47.7%±7.7 47.0%
BH crosscourt 13% 55.9%±8.6 49.1%
BH through the middle 12% 50.4%±9.0 46.8%
FH down the line + approach 2% 74.5%±12.9 70.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Tomas Martin Etcheverry's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 185 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 62% ▲ 76% / 73%
Body 12% 4% 62% / 63%
T 35% 34% 71% / 75%

971 normal · 50 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 43% 72% / 73%
Body 7% 10% 60% / 63%
T 50% 47% 73% / 72%

800 normal · 135 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
Wide54% 66.2%±3.2 n=547 67% ▲
Body11% 60.4%±6.7 n=116 0% ▼
T35% 61.1%±4.1 n=358 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.14).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 62.6%±3.8 n=408 38% ▼
Body7% 54.6%±8.3 n=67 0% ▼
T49% 63.5%±3.6 n=460 62% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.13).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.63 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±4.1 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. (719 repeats, 1,189 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 64 36% −0.7±8.2
1stAd courtT 274 32% +4.0±4.4
1stAd courtWide 256 29% +1.8±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 61 42% +5.1±8.5
1stDeuce courtT 279 23% −1.9±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 338 27% +0.3±3.8
2ndAd courtBody 113 45% −4.1±6.8
2ndAd courtT 85 49% +0.1±7.7
2ndAd courtWide 203 45% −3.5±5.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 152 51% +1.9±6.1
2ndDeuce courtT 164 54% +4.4±5.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 90 48% −0.2±7.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 65% · +0.6±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 61% · −4.0±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 59% · −6.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 59% · −5.5±8.7 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 5.7% · won 61% · −4.2±7.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.1% · won 51% · +10.7±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 5.1% · won 49% · +8.0±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 50% · +9.6±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 48% · +7.7±8.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 50% · +8.8±10.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 2.4% · won 56% · +11.0±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 54% · +9.9±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 53% · +8.5±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 1.5% · won 54% · +9.2±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.3% · won 47% · +2.9±6.3 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 Martin Etcheverry wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +8.6±8.9 vs own baseline · +5.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (3/8), Arthur Cazaux (5/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.8% · won 54% · +7.6±9.1 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alexander Zverev (4/6), Hubert Hurkacz (4/6)
  3. BH through the middle → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 57% · +10.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +18.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andy Murray (4/6), Miomir Kecmanovic (6/7)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.6% · won 55% · +8.4±10.0 vs own baseline · +3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Brandon Nakashima (4/8), Arthur Cazaux (5/7)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 54% · +8.2±10.8 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (5/7), Andy Murray (6/7)
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.4% · won 54% · +7.6±11.1 vs own baseline · +4.9 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 +1+3.0196
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.8139
FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.1301
FH to their forehand · rally+2.1961
FH to the middle · return +1+2.0143

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.8367
BH to the middle · return +1−2.0126
FH to their forehand · rally−1.9898
FH to their backhand · rally−1.5852
BH to their backhand · rally−1.5948

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.71, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.34, Jack Draper +2.25, Roberto Bautista Agut +2.11, Nishesh Basavareddy +2.10

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +2.24, Roberto Carballes Baena +2.09, Fabian Marozsan +2.07, Pedro Martinez +2.00, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.96

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce54%
Avg rally length4.9
T serves · ad49%
Run-around forehands31%
Forehand share57%
1st serve in64%
Through the middle27%
Deep returns30%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Points at net10%
FH down the line29%
Backhand slice15%
Serve & volley1%
Chipped returns6%
Wide serves · ad44%
Unforced errors / shot7.1%
Point-ending shots17.0%
T serves · deuce35%
BH down the line9%

Plays most like

  1. David Ferrer 2003–2019 plan v
  2. Diego Schwartzman 2015–2025 plan v
  3. Pablo Carreno Busta 2015–2026 plan v
  4. Casper Ruud 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Carlos Berlocq 2011–2019 plan v
  6. Guillermo Canas 2001–2007 plan v
  7. Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Sebastian Baez 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guillermo Canas 2001–2007
  2. Andy Roddick 2001–2012
  3. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005

Charted matches