RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2021–2025

Yannick Hanfmann

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.1% ±3.0 raw 59.7% · tour 63.4% · 1,047 points
Return points won 38.5% ±3.1 raw 35.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,048 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 +0.01 ±0.14 better than 58% of ATP · raw +0.01
Shot selection +0.22 ±0.32 better than 74% of ATP · raw +0.22
Execution −0.66 ±0.91 better than 38% of ATP · raw −0.68
Tactical adaptability +0.04 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed −0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.68 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 41% 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 4,951 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Yannick Hanfmann 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 middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 281 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 51.1%±8.3 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 46.3%±9.8 47.0%
FH down the line 17% 58.7%±9.9 51.5%
BH crosscourt 14% 44.7%±10.6 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 45.3%±10.9 46.8%
BH down the line 4% 52.0%±14.5 48.3%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 245 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 47.8%±7.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 31% 35.8%±8.0 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 42.2%±11.7 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 5% 30.4%±13.2 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 37.1%±14.3 42.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 202 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 38.8%±7.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 23% 46.7%±10.0 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 47.5%±10.3 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 9% 15.5%±9.7 24.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 135 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 36% 42.9%±9.8 43.0%
BH crosscourt 36% 31.5%±9.3 46.9%
BH slice through the middle 10% 33.9%±13.4 32.6%
BH down the line 10% 54.1%±14.3 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 39.3%±14.4 40.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Yannick Hanfmann's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 101 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 43% 61% / 73%
Body 9% 9% 53% / 63%
T 51% 48% 73% / 75%

521 normal · 23 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 56% 64% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 55% / 63%
T 37% 38% 68% / 72%

425 normal · 78 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
Wide40% 57.4%±5.1 n=220 36% ▼
Body9% 51.3%±9.3 n=49 0% ▼
T51% 65.4%±4.5 n=275 64% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve T more. Gap 4.5 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide55% 56.2%±4.7 n=275 49% ▼
Body8% 51.8%±9.9 n=39 0% ▼
T38% 64.7%±5.3 n=189 51% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.024): serve T more. Gap 5.6 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.79 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: −2.7±6.7 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. (419 repeats, 598 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 35 29% −7.6±9.3
1stAd courtT 119 22% −5.6±5.6
1stAd courtWide 154 25% −2.7±5.2
1stDeuce courtBody 41 37% −0.1±9.4
1stDeuce courtT 142 27% +2.0±5.6
1stDeuce courtWide 158 24% −3.2±5.1
2ndAd courtBody 53 55% +5.8±9.0
2ndAd courtT 38 44% −5.5±9.9
2ndAd courtWide 102 55% +6.6±7.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 75 47% −1.7±8.0
2ndDeuce courtT 83 56% +6.0±7.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 48 51% +2.5±9.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 65% · +1.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 62% · −0.7±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 61% · −1.8±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 5.6% · won 61% · −2.3±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 59% · −3.9±11.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.5% · won 44% · +2.7±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.0% · won 40% · −0.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 6.6% · won 40% · −1.2±10.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 5.7% · won 39% · −1.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 38% · −3.0±10.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 57% · +8.5±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 55% · +6.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 55% · +7.5±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 51% · +2.6±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 50% · +1.9±10.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Yannick Hanfmann 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 0.7% · won 56% · +9.7±12.6 vs own baseline · +17.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (5/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 54% · +7.5±11.3 vs own baseline · +11.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Francisco Cerundolo (6/9)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 50% · +3.7±12.6 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 49% · +2.7±11.9 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Francisco Cerundolo (2/7)
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 48% · +1.3±12.9 vs own baseline · +4.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 47% · +0.8±11.4 vs own baseline · −0.2 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

T 1st serve · ad court+2.2189
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.0220
BH to the middle · return+1.0200
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.2275
FH to their backhand · rally±0.0190

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−3.6201
FH to the middle · return−3.4206
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.9250
BH to their backhand · return−1.7129
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.2258

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Cameron Norrie, Daniil Medvedev, Dusan Lajovic, Ugo Humbert

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot4.7%
1st serve in67%
Unforced errors / shot12.2%
Through the middle28%
T serves · deuce51%
Wide serves · ad55%
Point-ending shots26.9%
Forehand share55%
Deep returns30%
Points at net11%
Serve & volley6%
T serves · ad38%
Avg rally length3.8
Run-around forehands15%
Backhand slice15%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Chipped returns8%
FH down the line27%
BH down the line15%

Plays most like

  1. Nick Kyrgios 2013–2025 plan v
  2. Marco Cecchinato 2018–2022 plan v
  3. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Alejandro Tabilo 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Fabian Marozsan 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Carlos Alcaraz 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Arthur Rinderknech 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014
  2. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005
  3. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006

Charted matches