ATPCRO
Racquet Rating: 495.7 out of 1000. Status: Active.
Official ATP Ranking
#70
Every published Racquet Rating observation for Dino Prizmic, from the canonical rating artifact.
No rating history has been published for this player yet.
The history plots published Racquet Rating observations. It is never interpolated or back-filled.
The published Racquet Rating is the sum of five weighted model components. This is that sum, for Dino Prizmic.
Racquet Rating 495.7. Five model components, largest contribution first: Form Momentum, 186.1 points; Performance Index, 161.7 points; Surface Balance, 67.4 points; Match Context, 53.8 points; Era Normalization, 26.7 points. Together they total 495.7 points, which reconciles with the published rating of 495.7. Component scores are 0 to 100; contributions are rating points out of 1000.
The largest contribution is Form Momentum, at 186.1 of the 495.7 rating points (38%), followed by Performance Index at 161.7 (33%). Era Normalization contributes least, at 26.7 (5%). The rating is computed from 41 qualifying matches over the 4-year rating window.
Form Momentum
186.1
Recent trajectory: results over a 26-week window with exponential decay, a fatigue adjustment from minutes and sets played, and an allowance for a player returning after a long absence.
It is what makes the rating a current-form measure rather than a career résumé.
Published evidence
Performance Index
161.7
How well the player wins points and matches — serve and return points won, break points converted and saved, results against elite opponents, and the strength of the field they have faced.
It carries the most weight of any component, so it usually accounts for the largest share of a rating.
Published evidence
Surface Balance
67.4
How evenly the player performs across hard, clay and grass — an entropy-like measure of the spread, with a small penalty for extreme specialisation and credit for consistency across surfaces.
It rewards a game that travels. It is a measure of balance, not of how good the player is on any one surface.
Match Context
53.8
How results compare with expectation once the round and the event are taken into account, so performance on bigger stages counts for more.
It carries the smallest weight of the five, so it moves a rating the least.
Era Normalization
26.7
An adjustment against fixed era baselines and tour-depth proxies, so players from different periods remain comparable.
It is what allows one 0–1000 scale to span the whole dataset rather than only the current season.
Performance over the headline rating window. Rates are shown only where the surface sample provides sufficient evidence.
Surface performance over the rating window: 41 matches, 41 with a recorded surface. Surfaces played: Hard, Clay. Hard, 7 wins and 11 losses, 38.9 percent, 95 percent interval 20 to 61 percent. Clay, 12 wins and 11 losses, 52.2 percent, 95 percent interval 33 to 71 percent. These rates describe this player only and are not used to rank players.
Hard
Hard, 7 wins and 11 losses, 38.9 percent, 95 percent interval 20 to 61 percent.
Clay
Clay, 12 wins and 11 losses, 52.2 percent, 95 percent interval 33 to 71 percent.
These records come from the same canonical match observations as the headline Racquet Rating, over the same 41-match rating window. Nothing here is a separate rating.
A win rate appears only where a surface has at least 10 matches. Below that a single result moves the percentage by ten points or more, so the record is shown and the percentage is not.
The range beside each rate is a 95% confidence interval. It is wide on purpose: a surface record of a few dozen matches does not pin a percentage down, and the interval is the honest width of that uncertainty rather than a claim of precision.
Matches whose source records no surface are counted in the totals and assigned to no surface. They are never redistributed.
This player's record over their last 10 matches in the rating window. A record of what happened, not a prediction.
Last 10 matches: 6 wins and 4 losses, played Mar 2026 – May 2026.
Last 10 matches
The last 10 matches this player actually played, from the same canonical match data as the headline Racquet Rating. Retirements count — a match was played and a winner advanced. Walkovers do not, because no match took place.
Match dates in the source are tournament start dates, so several matches can share a date. The order is reconstructed from the tournament and the round, which is why the record is shown as a total and not as a sequence of individual results.
The dates above are the span these 10 matches cover. For a player who has not competed recently that span can be well in the past, which is why it is always shown.
Victories over the highest-ranked opponents in the published rating window, using the opponent's official rank at the time of the match.
The 5 highest-ranked opponents defeated in the published rating window, out of 19 wins over ranked opponents. Ordered by the opponent's ranking at the time of each match, best first.
Defeated Novak Djokovic, ranked number 4 at the time of the match, in May 2026 at Rome Masters · Round of 64.
Defeated Ben Shelton, ranked number 6 at the time of the match, in April 2026 at Madrid Masters · Round of 64.
Defeated Jiri Lehecka, ranked number 30 at the time of the match, in October 2023 at Stockholm · Round of 32.
Defeated Ugo Humbert, ranked number 33 at the time of the match, in May 2026 at Rome Masters · Round of 32.
Defeated Marton Fucsovics, ranked number 57 at the time of the match, in May 2026 at Rome Masters · Round of 128.
Every win this player recorded in the rating window against an opponent the source ranks, ordered by that opponent's official ranking in the week of the tournament, and limited to the 5 highest. Each opponent appears once, at that player's highest-ranked victory over them.
The ranking shown is the opponent's ranking at the time of that match, taken from the same match record as the result. It is not their ranking today, and not their career-high.
Retirements are included and marked. The match was played and a winner advanced, and it counts toward the rating this profile explains — but it was not completed, so it is not presented as though it had been.
These sections are published only once the underlying verified data exists. Nothing below is estimated or inferred in the meantime.