RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 23 charted matches · 2019–2026

Zhizhen Zhang

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.2% ±2.9 raw 63.8% · tour 63.4% · 1,799 points
Return points won 34.0% ±2.9 raw 30.7% · tour 36.6% · 1,787 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 −0.06 ±0.09 better than 41% of ATP · raw −0.06
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.20 better than 54% of ATP · raw +0.03
Execution −0.36 ±0.66 better than 51% of ATP · raw −0.30
Tactical adaptability +0.16 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.50 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 61% 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 8,161 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Zhizhen Zhang 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 · 438 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 42.0%±5.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 30% 46.2%±6.6 43.7%
BH down the line 13% 50.4%±9.4 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 39.8%±12.1 42.5%
FH inside-out 3% 49.6%±13.9 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 3% 35.4%±13.5 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 404 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 51.5%±7.5 51.5%
FH crosscourt 23% 48.7%±7.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 51.6%±8.8 47.0%
BH through the middle 11% 47.5%±10.1 46.8%
BH crosscourt 10% 41.4%±10.5 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 6% 70.0%±11.5 70.5%
BH down the line 5% 50.4%±12.8 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 350 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 39.8%±6.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 27% 43.4%±7.6 41.5%
FH down the line 23% 48.0%±8.1 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 18.8%±9.9 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 4% 76.1%±12.0 69.3%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 225 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 36% 41.2%±8.1 43.0%
BH crosscourt 31% 46.5%±8.7 46.9%
BH slice through the middle 12% 20.2%±9.6 32.6%
BH down the line 10% 54.4%±12.6 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 34.8%±13.2 40.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Zhizhen Zhang's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 149 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 37% 72% / 73%
Body 7% 8% 69% / 63%
T 50% 55% 76% / 75%

911 normal · 38 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 48% 69% / 73%
Body 9% 4% 57% / 63%
T 49% 49% 75% / 72%

739 normal · 111 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% 63.0%±3.8 n=404 37% ▼
Body7% 68.4%±7.6 n=71 0% ▼
T50% 64.3%±3.5 n=474 63% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.49).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide44% 60.6%±4.0 n=370 38% ▼
Body8% 54.7%±8.3 n=67 0% ▼
T49% 67.6%±3.7 n=413 62% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve T more. Gap 4.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.57 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: +1.7±3.2 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. (679 repeats, 1,074 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 37 33% −4.0±9.4
1stAd courtT 207 23% −5.5±4.5
1stAd courtWide 296 22% −5.7±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 53 35% −1.8±8.6
1stDeuce courtT 230 23% −2.2±4.3
1stDeuce courtWide 298 19% −8.5±3.5
2ndAd courtBody 101 50% +0.9±7.2
2ndAd courtT 56 44% −5.3±8.8
2ndAd courtWide 156 47% −1.3±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 117 48% −0.9±6.8
2ndDeuce courtT 159 43% −6.4±5.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 77 48% ±0.0±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 65% · −2.7±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 64% · −4.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 64% · −4.0±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 61% · −7.1±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 58% · −9.5±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.3% · won 52% · +13.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.9% · won 50% · +11.5±9.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.1% · won 49% · +10.1±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.8% · won 48% · +9.3±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.8% · won 48% · +9.0±10.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 59% · +8.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 57% · +7.1±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 57% · +6.5±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 55% · +5.3±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 53% · +3.3±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 Zhizhen Zhang wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 54% · +6.8±9.8 vs own baseline · +8.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jiri Lehecka (3/6), Hubert Hurkacz (5/10)
  2. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 58% · +10.8±12.7 vs own baseline · +18.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.1% · won 52% · +4.7±9.9 vs own baseline · +9.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andreas Seppi (5/11), Hubert Hurkacz (7/13)
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +7.3±13.0 vs own baseline · +7.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (5/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +4.6±12.4 vs own baseline · +7.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (5/7)
  6. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 52% · +4.7±12.7 vs own baseline · +4.3 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 to their backhand · return+2.4245
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.6474
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.5188
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.4135
BH to the middle · return+1.4391

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · rally−3.4436
T 1st serve · ad court−2.0318
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.8156
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.8238
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.7466

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.88, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.78, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.69, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.60, Pedro Martinez +1.51

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.69, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.68, Pedro Martinez +0.59, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.45, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.41

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roberto Carballes Baena, Roberto Bautista Agut, Miomir Kecmanovic, Pedro Martinez, Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad49%
Unforced errors / shot12.5%
Through the middle29%
Deep returns34%
Forehand share57%
T serves · deuce50%
FH down the line33%
Point-ending shots26.7%
1st serve in63%
Drop shots / shot1.7%
Chipped returns15%
Wide serves · deuce43%
BH down the line19%
Run-around forehands16%
Backhand slice16%
Serve & volley1%
Points at net9%
Avg rally length3.6
Wide serves · ad44%

Plays most like

  1. Kevin Anderson 2011–2022 plan v
  2. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Arthur Rinderknech 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  6. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  8. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  3. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011

Charted matches