RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 12 charted matches · 2020–2025

Arthur Cazaux

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.1% ±3.1 raw 62.6% · tour 63.4% · 1,030 points
Return points won 34.7% ±3.1 raw 31.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,008 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 −0.18 ±0.16 better than 17% of ATP · raw −0.17
Shot selection −0.06 ±0.30 better than 47% of ATP · raw −0.05
Execution +0.04 ±0.45 better than 72% of ATP · raw +0.17
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.87 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 26% 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 5,402 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Arthur Cazaux 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 forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 313 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 42.9%±7.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 30% 41.0%±7.6 41.5%
FH down the line 20% 44.0%±8.9 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 25.4%±11.5 24.5%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 300 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 47.2%±6.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 50.8%±8.5 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 39.2%±10.2 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 39.2%±13.2 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.4%±13.8 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 38.0%±14.6 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 226 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 45.3%±9.3 51.5%
FH through the middle 21% 42.4%±9.9 47.0%
FH crosscourt 20% 44.8%±10.1 52.7%
BH through the middle 14% 41.9%±11.4 46.8%
BH crosscourt 12% 52.8%±12.0 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 47.3%±14.8 48.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 177 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 54.0%±8.6 48.0%
BH through the middle 31% 33.5%±9.0 43.8%
BH down the line 16% 45.5%±11.7 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 45.1%±14.5 42.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Arthur Cazaux's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 95 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 48% 72% / 73%
Body 5% 4% 60% / 63%
T 49% 48% 78% / 75%

510 normal · 25 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 69% ▲ 72% / 73%
Body 3% 7% 69% / 63%
T 46% 24% ▼ 71% / 72%

424 normal · 70 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
Wide46% 65.5%±4.7 n=246 59% ▲
Body5% 56.2%±11.0 n=25 0% ▼
T49% 64.7%±4.6 n=264 41% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.54).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 64.1%±4.6 n=267 67% ▲
Body3% 67.3%±11.4 n=16 3%
T43% 55.8%±5.3 n=211 30% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.08).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.39 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: −4.0±4.9 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. (414 repeats, 591 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 16 35% −2.0±11.6
1stAd courtT 149 20% −7.7±4.9
1stAd courtWide 124 25% −2.4±5.7
1stDeuce courtBody 20 34% −2.7±11.0
1stDeuce courtT 126 21% −3.6±5.4
1stDeuce courtWide 166 27% −0.1±5.2
2ndAd courtBody 58 40% −9.8±8.6
2ndAd courtT 40 45% −3.9±9.8
2ndAd courtWide 93 48% −0.8±7.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 71 39% −9.7±8.0
2ndDeuce courtT 100 51% +1.0±7.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 43 49% +0.4±9.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 66% · −2.5±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 63% · −4.6±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 62% · −5.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 61% · −7.3±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 59% · −9.2±11.5 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.6% · won 45% · +11.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 40% · +7.0±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.6% · won 40% · +6.3±10.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 4.2% · won 39% · +5.9±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.2% · won 38% · +4.1±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 50% · +6.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 49% · +6.1±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 48% · +5.4±9.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 48% · +5.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 4.4% · won 47% · +3.8±9.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Arthur Cazaux 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 51% · +6.8±10.7 vs own baseline · +7.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (4/6)
  2. FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 50% · +5.9±11.6 vs own baseline · +9.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tomas Martin Etcheverry (4/6)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 47% · +3.3±10.9 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alexander Bublik (1/6), Tomas Martin Etcheverry (3/10)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 47% · +3.1±11.3 vs own baseline · +1.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Tomas Martin Etcheverry (7/13), Hubert Hurkacz (5/9)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 47% · +2.6±12.2 vs own baseline · −3.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Harold Mayot (2/7)
  6. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 46% · +1.4±12.4 vs own baseline · +3.6 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

FH to their forehand · serve +1+2.7142
BH to their backhand · rally+2.4268
FH to their forehand · rally+1.4305
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.3267
FH to the middle · rally+0.9251

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−2.8318
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.7157
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.7156
BH to their forehand · rally−1.6127
T 1st serve · ad court−1.5232

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.60, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.06, Jack Draper +1.95, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.85, Pedro Martinez +1.84

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.26, Pedro Martinez +1.22, Fabian Marozsan +1.18, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.12, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.01

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Adrian Andreev, Alex Molcan, Rafael Nadal, Hugo Gaston, Daniel Evans

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle32%
Deep returns37%
T serves · deuce49%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
Wide serves · ad54%
T serves · ad43%
Forehand share56%
Avg rally length4.2
Wide serves · deuce46%
BH down the line21%
FH down the line30%
Chipped returns12%
Unforced errors / shot9.2%
Points at net9%
Serve & volley1%
1st serve in59%
Point-ending shots20.7%
Backhand slice12%
Run-around forehands12%

Plays most like

  1. Filip Krajinovic 2017–2023 plan v
  2. Jakub Mensik 2022–2026 plan v
  3. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  4. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v
  6. Taylor Fritz 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  8. Rinky Hijikata 2023–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  2. Marat Safin 1998–2009
  3. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011

Charted matches