Tennis opponent analysis: notes to test at the rematch
In this article
To analyse a tennis opponent, write down the situation, the serve-and-return exchange, the rally pattern that followed, and what happened. Keep your interpretation on a separate line. Before you play them again, choose two ideas to test and be ready to drop them.
That is the whole method behind this singles scouting template. It draws on tennis performance research, on studies of sporting reflection and on what coaches and players have learned on court, but the template itself has not been tested in a controlled trial. None of the studies below shows that keeping an opponent journal improves a tennis player’s win rate.
The problem it addresses is ordinary. You remember losing to someone with “a big forehand”, yet cannot say where you lost the points:
- on your second serve
- on the short balls you fed after their deep returns
- on the down-the-line changes you never covered
An opponent journal is where you can set those explanations side by side and see which one holds.
What does tennis research support?
Two findings from the professional game carry over to club tennis as recording habits, not as tactics.
The first is that a player’s numbers depend on where they play and whom they play. In PLOS ONE (2018), Yixiong Cui of the Technical University of Madrid and colleagues in Madrid and at the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro analysed performance statistics from 1,369 women’s singles matches at the four Grand Slams between 2014 and 2017. Serve and return statistics differed between tournaments:
- Australian Open and US Open: more service winners, double faults, return winners and unforced return errors
- Wimbledon: stronger serving
- Roland Garros: better chances to break serve
Almost every variable was also related to the two players’ relative quality — the gap between them, derived from their rankings. The study describes elite women through official match statistics and says nothing about club players.
For our purposes, it supports a modest habit — record the surface, the conditions and the level of the opponent, and expect a pattern to hold only when all three are similar.
The second is that the serve and the return deserve their own line. In the Journal of Sports Sciences (2016), Machar Reid of Tennis Australia’s Game Insight Group and colleagues compared tracking data from 102 male and 95 female players at the Australian Open between 2012 and 2014.
The largest differences between the two groups were in serve statistics — speed, aces, unreturned serves and the share of service points won — with further differences in where and how low returns were struck. That is a study of sex differences at one hard-court event, not a scouting method. It is nonetheless a reason to write down what the serve did and what came back, rather than “good serve”.
The International Tennis Federation’s coaching journal offers a practitioner’s version of the same ideas. In the ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review (2010), Scott Over and Peter O’Donoghue reviewed tactical analysis in tennis:
- serve direction, split by first and second serve and by deuce and advantage court
- how often a player comes forward on longer points
- how those choices shift with the opponent, the score and the tournament
One sentence from their conclusion could sit at the top of any set of notes: “Players never play against an ‘average’ opponent on an ‘average’ court surface with ‘average’ balls.” It is a coaching review rather than new experimental research, and a useful reference if you want to build a fuller charting sheet.
What should you write down after a match?
Our recommendation: after each match, write down what worked, what didn’t work and what you will do next time. In any racket or combat sport, these are the three things we think matter most. The two prompts that come before them, context and the opponent, set the scene. All five are working prompts for club players, not a validated instrument.
- Context. Opponent, date, format, surface, indoors or out, wind and sun, the result, and the score situation for anything specific you noticed. Add handedness and whether the backhand is one- or two-handed. Mark whether a note comes from memory, from video, or from someone who watched.
- The opponent. Their first and second serves from each side, where they went and what your return produced; which of your serves they attacked, and which they blocked back. Then how the point developed after the return: cross-court exchanges and when they changed direction, what they did with a short ball, whether they came forward, and what they hit when you did. Name the forehand and backhand sides from their perspective, not yours.
- What worked. Returns, serves and patterns that won you points or gave you a neutral rally.
- What didn’t work. Your own shot choice, execution, footwork or timing. A missed passing shot on break point is not evidence that they cannot be passed.
- What to do next time. One or two specific adjustments, and the observation that would make you abandon them.
Write in fragments if that keeps the habit alive. Leave a field empty when you cannot recall the detail; an honest gap is more useful than a precise-looking guess.
What does a useful entry look like?
The following is an invented teaching example, not a player’s record or research data:
Context: Club ladder, best of three, outdoor hard court, gusty wind from the clubhouse end. Lost 4–6, 6–7. Right-hander, two-handed backhand. Written the same evening from memory; a friend watched the second set.
The opponent: On the deuce side, most of the first serves I can remember went wide to my forehand. Second serves were slow kicks to my backhand. In backhand cross-court exchanges they went down the line early — twice for winners, once wide. They came forward only behind a short ball to their forehand.
What worked: When I chipped their second serves deep through the middle, the rally started neutral. I passed once when they came forward.
What didn’t work: When I tried to attack their second serves cross-court, I made two errors in the tiebreak. Lobbed short once. Rushing second-serve returns at 30–30 and deuce. Two double faults serving into the wind. Approaching behind a slice that sat up.
Next time: Return second serves deep through the middle and let the rally begin. Serve with more margin into the wind. Revise the plan if the second serve has changed or the court is different.
“Twice for winners, once wide” is a tiny sample. It is a reason to watch for the down-the-line ball, not a probability for the next match. Without a tally or video, write “several wide serves” and mark the count as unknown.
A court sketch can hold the location a sentence loses. Label each mark with the shot and its context, and keep the same viewpoint throughout; unlabelled dots do not explain a point. Record the examples that contradict your first impression as well.
How do you turn notes into a rematch plan?
Read the entry before you warm up. Pick one or two observations worth checking and reduce them to cues short enough to repeat between points. You can add more, but a long list makes the plan complicated before you have walked on court.
For the example above, the cues might be “deep return through the middle” and “margin into the wind”. Use the first few games to find out whether the old pattern still applies. The opponent may have changed their second serve; the surface, the balls and the wind may all differ from last time, and so may your own form. A plan should help you notice the change, not argue with it.
Afterwards, add what happened, including the times a tactic failed. Write while you can still replay the points, and check video where it exists. Our article on match memory looks at the wider research; it cannot tell you how quickly one particular rally will fade.
What can the notes tell you about your own training?
Compare the “what didn’t work” lines across several opponents. If rushed second-serve returns keep appearing, take that concrete observation to your coach or onto the practice court. Check the circumstances as well as the repeated phrase; wind, fatigue and score pressure may each need a different answer.
There is related evidence for reflection, with clear limits. In the Journal of Sports Sciences (2009), Tynke T. Toering of the University of Groningen and colleagues compared self-regulation in 159 elite and 285 non-elite youth soccer players. Higher self-reported reflection scores were associated with elite status. This was an observational questionnaire study in soccer, not evidence that written notes caused improvement in tennis. Our review of athletic reflection examines that broader question.
OpponentBook can hold a page per opponent and notes attached to pins on its tennis singles-court schematic. The journal is free, and synced notes live in your own connected storage. OpponentBook does not keep a journal copy in its account database; when you request an AI action, the necessary content passes through an OpponentBook server to the AI provider, as the privacy guide explains. Optional end-to-end encryption also hides the encrypted notes from your storage provider; photos, video and provider-visible file metadata are not covered by that encryption.
Tonight, put your last singles match through the five prompts. Write down what worked and what didn’t, mark one uncertainty, and choose one or two things to test when you play them again.
