RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 70 charted matches · 2023–2026

Arthur Fils

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 66.8% ±2.3 raw 65.3% · tour 63.4% · 5,196 points
Return points won 37.8% ±2.5 raw 35.8% · tour 36.6% · 5,104 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 ±0.06 better than 92% of ATP · raw +0.18
Shot selection −0.04 ±0.13 better than 48% of ATP · raw −0.04
Execution +0.20 ±0.45 better than 75% of ATP · raw +0.30
Tactical adaptability +0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 68 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.17 ±0.51 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,612 shots · better than 88% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.31 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 83% 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 24,379 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Arthur Fils 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 · 1,663 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 48.3%±3.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 46.5%±4.5 43.7%
BH down the line 9% 42.5%±6.1 46.4%
FH inside-out 9% 58.2%±6.2 51.8%
FH inside-in 5% 61.0%±7.7 54.7%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 42.5%±8.4 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 3% 25.0%±8.4 35.1%
FH through the middle 2% 29.0%±11.1 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,077 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 53.8%±4.7 52.7%
FH down the line 26% 55.4%±4.7 51.5%
BH crosscourt 13% 46.7%±6.6 49.1%
FH through the middle 12% 49.6%±6.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 12% 47.5%±6.8 46.8%
BH down the line 4% 56.2%±10.0 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 67.6%±11.3 70.5%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 43.2%±13.2 47.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 962 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 53.9%±3.6 48.0%
BH through the middle 17% 44.6%±6.0 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 49.5%±8.0 42.1%
BH down the line 7% 62.3%±8.7 46.5%
FH inside-out 5% 52.2%±10.0 52.6%
FH inside-in 4% 61.8%±10.5 54.3%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.2%±10.3 35.1%
BH slice down the line 2% 31.2%±12.2 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 960 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 50.8%±4.0 46.6%
FH down the line 19% 45.9%±5.9 44.7%
FH through the middle 18% 38.6%±5.7 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 10% 19.6%±6.0 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 5% 41.8%±10.1 30.9%
FH slice down the line 4% 33.6%±10.3 25.6%
FH down the line + approach 1% 77.0%±12.4 69.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Arthur Fils's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 388 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 52% 73% / 73%
Body 5% 1% 59% / 63%
T 39% 47% ▲ 79% / 75%

2,626 normal · 109 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 58% 74% / 73%
Body 5% 5% 57% / 63%
T 43% 37% 73% / 72%

2,178 normal · 279 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
Wide56% 66.3%±2.0 n=1,539 48% ▼
Body5% 58.2%±6.4 n=129 0% ▼
T39% 68.5%±2.3 n=1,067 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.59).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 63.1%±2.2 n=1,298 45% ▼
Body5% 54.8%±6.6 n=126 0% ▼
T42% 65.9%±2.4 n=1,033 55% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve T more. Gap 2.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 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: −1.8±1.7 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. (2,106 repeats, 2,946 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 97 34% −3.1±6.9
1stAd courtT 592 29% +1.5±3.0
1stAd courtWide 831 29% +2.1±2.6
1stDeuce courtBody 114 33% −3.4±6.5
1stDeuce courtT 773 27% +2.1±2.6
1stDeuce courtWide 825 28% +0.7±2.5
2ndAd courtBody 223 48% −1.2±5.2
2ndAd courtT 148 57% +7.9±6.1
2ndAd courtWide 533 47% −1.2±3.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 201 46% −3.3±5.4
2ndDeuce courtT 525 46% −3.2±3.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 232 49% +0.6±5.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 66% · −3.4±5.3 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 64% · −5.1±7.0 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 61% · −7.8±6.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 61% · −8.3±6.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 59% · −10.5±6.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.0% · won 58% · +15.4±6.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 51% · +8.5±7.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.1% · won 51% · +8.2±8.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 47% · +4.9±8.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.5% · won 45% · +2.9±5.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH inside-out → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 64% · +14.9±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 60% · +11.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 56% · +7.4±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 58% · +9.3±8.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 1.0% · won 59% · +10.6±9.2 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 Fils wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 63% · +13.3±9.1 vs own baseline · +11.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jaume Munar (5/8)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.5% · won 63% · +12.7±8.9 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrey Rublev (4/6), Lorenzo Musetti (7/9)
  3. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH inside-in used 0.2% · won 64% · +14.3±11.3 vs own baseline · +18.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jaume Munar (5/7)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 62% · +12.5±11.0 vs own baseline · +8.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH down the line → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 64% · +13.5±11.4 vs own baseline · +15.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 58% · +7.7±8.5 vs own baseline · +6.0 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 forehand · return+2.5230
T 1st serve · deuce court+2.31,057
FH slice to their backhand · rally+1.9138
BH to their backhand · return+1.9710
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.61,519

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−3.3331
FH to the middle · return−2.9875
T 1st serve · ad court−2.5925
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.41,315
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−2.11,241

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Miomir Kecmanovic +0.97, Rafael Nadal +0.93, Nishesh Basavareddy +0.86, Pedro Martinez +0.78, Casper Ruud +0.72

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.07, Fabian Marozsan +1.06, Pedro Martinez +0.94, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.87, Alexander Shevchenko +0.85

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce56%
Unforced errors / shot12.8%
Run-around forehands28%
Deep returns34%
Point-ending shots27.9%
T serves · ad42%
Wide serves · ad53%
Forehand share55%
1st serve in62%
Drop shots / shot1.5%
Chipped returns14%
FH down the line29%
Avg rally length3.8
Serve & volley2%
Backhand slice14%
BH down the line16%
Points at net7%
Through the middle22%
T serves · deuce39%

Plays most like

  1. Lloyd Harris 2019–2024 plan v
  2. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  3. Leonardo Mayer 2014–2019 plan v
  4. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  5. Felix Auger Aliassime 2017–2026 plan v
  6. Marin Cilic 2009–2026 plan v
  7. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Tallon Griekspoor 2018–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  3. Andre Agassi 1988–2006

Charted matches