RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 16 charted matches · 1992–2000

Cedric Pioline

Archetype: Serve-and-volleyer · Net rusher

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.7% ±2.6 raw 64.5% · tour 63.4% · 1,672 points
Return points won 36.6% ±2.8 raw 32.4% · tour 36.6% · 1,628 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 −0.39 ±0.13 better than 3% of ATP · raw −0.39
Shot selection −0.33 ±0.27 better than 20% of ATP · raw −0.32
Execution −1.11 ±0.54 better than 21% of ATP · raw −1.06
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 16 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.75 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 5% 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 7,370 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Cedric Pioline 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 · 314 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 41.6%±7.1 47.6%
BH through the middle 32% 36.2%±7.2 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 43.4%±10.4 42.5%
BH down the line 7% 44.6%±12.8 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 33.4%±12.4 35.1%
FH inside-out 5% 46.8%±13.9 51.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 285 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 21% 47.3%±9.2 46.8%
FH through the middle 20% 42.6%±9.3 47.0%
FH down the line 18% 50.4%±9.7 51.5%
FH crosscourt 14% 50.1%±10.5 52.7%
BH crosscourt 9% 43.1%±12.0 49.1%
FH down the line + approach 7% 72.8%±11.6 70.5%
BH down the line 5% 49.0%±14.1 48.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 241 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 35% 31.0%±7.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 41.5%±9.1 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 17% 30.7%±9.8 42.1%
BH down the line 9% 47.1%±12.8 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.8%±12.4 35.1%
BH slice down the line 5% 33.8%±13.5 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 193 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 46.8%±8.2 46.6%
FH down the line 30% 40.2%±9.2 44.7%
FH through the middle 28% 40.4%±9.3 41.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Cedric Pioline's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 141 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 35% 74% / 73%
Body 15% 12% 67% / 63%
T 43% 53% ▲ 74% / 75%

806 normal · 34 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 45% 73% / 73%
Body 16% 14% 64% / 63%
T 35% 41% 74% / 72%

655 normal · 107 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
Wide42% 67.2%±4.0 n=350 55% ▲
Body15% 60.2%±6.4 n=127 2% ▼
T43% 63.1%±4.0 n=363 43%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.17).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 62.8%±4.0 n=368 48%
Body16% 63.1%±6.5 n=121 3% ▼
T36% 62.9%±4.6 n=273 49% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 1.00).
Optimal mix: +0.4 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: −1.7±3.5 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. (622 repeats, 948 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 47 35% −1.8±9.0
1stAd courtT 187 30% +1.6±5.1
1stAd courtWide 203 20% −7.0±4.3
1stDeuce courtBody 55 38% +0.9±8.6
1stDeuce courtT 207 22% −3.3±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 203 20% −7.4±4.3
2ndAd courtBody 108 34% −15.5±6.6
2ndAd courtT 54 49% −0.7±9.0
2ndAd courtWide 152 44% −4.1±6.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 108 50% +0.8±7.0
2ndDeuce courtT 162 50% +0.8±5.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 79 52% +3.7±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH volley down the line used 2.1% · won 68% · −2.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 62% · −8.2±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 59% · −11.0±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −12.3±10.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 3.4% · won 50% · +15.1±10.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 2.7% · won 50% · +15.1±11.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 49% · +14.1±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.3% · won 43% · +8.5±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, short used 2.4% · won 47% · +12.1±11.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 52% · +11.8±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 46% · +5.8±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 45% · +4.7±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.7% · won 44% · +3.8±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.8% · won 44% · +3.8±10.8 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Cedric Pioline wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.7% · won 58% · +11.1±11.7 vs own baseline · +25.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 50% · +3.8±12.6 vs own baseline · +9.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 48% · +1.4±12.9 vs own baseline · +2.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gustavo Kuerten (4/6)
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 46% · −0.9±12.5 vs own baseline · −2.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 46% · −0.9±11.1 vs own baseline · −4.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex Corretja (4/10), Marat Safin (5/10)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 44% · −2.1±12.6 vs own baseline · −10.2 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

Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.2158
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.9350
Body 1st serve · ad court+0.9121
T 2nd serve · deuce court+0.4130
Body 1st serve · deuce court−0.2127

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · deuce court−2.4339
FH to their backhand · return−1.3129
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.0355
BH to their backhand · return +1−0.2123
BH to their backhand · return±0.0161

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Reilly Opelka, Nick Kyrgios, Quentin Halys, Nicolas Jarry

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle32%
Serve & volley34%
FH down the line37%
Points at net19%
Point-ending shots27.3%
Chipped returns21%
Unforced errors / shot10.9%
Backhand slice24%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Wide serves · ad48%
T serves · deuce43%
T serves · ad36%
BH down the line17%
Avg rally length3.5
Run-around forehands11%
1st serve in58%
Drop shots / shot0.3%
Forehand share47%
Deep returns11%

Plays most like

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006 plan v
  2. Mario Ancic 2002–2008 plan v
  3. Mardy Fish 2003–2012 plan v
  4. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  5. Brad Gilbert 1987–1994 plan v
  6. Jonas Bjorkman 1997–2006 plan v
  7. Malivai Washington 1992–1996 plan v
  8. Nicolas Kiefer 1999–2008 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Viktor Troicki 2009–2021
  2. Jan Lennard Struff 2014–2025
  3. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025

Charted matches