ATP · Right-handed · 3 charted matches · 2024–2025
Alvaro Guillen Meza
Shot expected value
The share of points Alvaro Guillen Meza 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 · 130 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 36% | 48.5%±10.0 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 23% | 39.5%±11.4 | 43.7% |
| FH inside-out | 15% | 42.0%±13.0 | 51.8% |
| BH down the line | 12% | 40.8%±13.7 | 46.4% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 98 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH down the line | 46% | 49.7%±10.2 | 51.5% |
| FH crosscourt | 33% | 54.9%±11.4 | 52.7% |
Return +1: drive to your backhand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 70 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 34% | 39.5%±12.1 | 46.9% |
| BH through the middle | 24% | 39.5%±13.2 | 43.0% |
| FH inside-out | 17% | 57.3%±14.4 | 51.7% |
| BH down the line | 14% | 49.5%±15.0 | 44.2% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 64 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 44% | 47.1%±11.9 | 48.0% |
| BH down the line | 20% | 52.4%±14.3 | 46.5% |
| FH inside-out | 16% | 51.8%±15.0 | 52.6% |
Serve under pressure
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 26% | 33% | 72% / 73% |
| Body | 0% | 0% | – / 63% |
| T | 74% | 67% | 73% / 75% |
140 normal · 9 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 73% | 52% ▼ | 66% / 73% |
| Body | 2% | 4% | 63% / 63% |
| T | 25% | 43% ▲ | 66% / 72% |
110 normal · 23 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 serve | Usage | Points won |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 27% | 62.3%±9.5 n=40 |
| Body | 0% | 61.7%±14.6 n=0 |
| T | 73% | 61.5%±6.8 n=109 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.87).
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 69% | 59.3%±7.3 n=92 |
| Body | 2% | 58.7%±14.1 n=3 |
| T | 29% | 55.1%±9.9 n=38 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.53).
Repeating the previous direction to the same court: −8.9±4.5 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. (142 repeats, 134 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 3 | 37% | −0.3±13.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 28 | 39% | +10.6±10.5 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 62 | 30% | +2.3±7.8 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 5 | 34% | −2.4±13.2 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 68 | 28% | +3.0±7.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 27 | 37% | +9.9±10.5 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 8 | 50% | +0.1±13.3 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 12 | 49% | +0.2±12.7 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 21 | 56% | +7.5±11.4 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 6 | 52% | +2.9±13.7 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 17 | 57% | +7.6±11.9 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 21 | 48% | −0.2±11.5 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Alvaro Guillen Meza's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 19.6% · won 71% · +0.4±9.7 vs own baseline
Return
- Not enough data
Rally, consecutive own shots
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 15.1% · won 39% · −2.0±11.3 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 13.7% · won 39% · −2.4±11.6 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Alvaro Guillen Meza wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 47% · −0.5±13.1 vs own baseline · −1.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camilo Ugo Carabelli (3/9)
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 46% · −1.5±12.6 vs own baseline · −2.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camilo Ugo Carabelli (1/6), Juan Carlos Prado Angelo (4/7)
- FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 43% · −5.1±12.6 vs own baseline · −13.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Juan Carlos Prado Angelo (1/6), Camilo Ugo Carabelli (2/7)
- FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 1.7% · won 42% · −5.5±12.9 vs own baseline · −19.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Camilo Ugo Carabelli (1/8)
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 43% · −5.4±11.9 vs own baseline · −16.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Juan Carlos Prado Angelo (2/7), Camilo Ugo Carabelli (5/13)
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 backhand · rally | −0.8 | 172 |