RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 8 charted matches · 2016–2022

Egor Gerasimov

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.7% ±3.4 raw 63.5% · tour 63.4% · 813 points
Return points won 37.4% ±3.4 raw 36.2% · tour 36.6% · 862 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 −0.12 ±0.11 better than 26% of ATP · raw −0.12
Shot selection +0.25 ±0.18 better than 75% of ATP · raw +0.26
Execution −0.08 ±0.57 better than 64% of ATP · raw +0.09
Points left on the table 2.49 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 61% 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 4,341 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Egor Gerasimov 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 middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 221 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 27% 48.8%±9.3 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 44.2%±10.2 51.5%
FH through the middle 17% 64.5%±10.3 47.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 47.7%±11.4 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 50.8%±11.9 46.8%
BH down the line 7% 50.4%±13.9 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 206 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 47.7%±7.6 46.6%
FH through the middle 27% 50.4%±9.4 41.5%
FH down the line 25% 37.4%±9.4 44.7%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 193 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 51.1%±8.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 35% 44.5%±8.8 43.7%
BH down the line 16% 43.7%±11.4 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 9% 32.5%±12.7 35.1%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 127 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 37% 50.2%±10.0 43.0%
BH crosscourt 33% 45.8%±10.4 46.9%
BH down the line 16% 42.1%±12.8 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 9% 30.7%±13.6 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +20 How much less varied Egor Gerasimov's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 57 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 21% ▼ 77% / 73%
Body 6% 21% ▲ 63% / 63%
T 51% 57% 70% / 75%

409 normal · 14 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 67% 81% ▲ 72% / 73%
Body 10% 5% 65% / 63%
T 24% 14% ▼ 67% / 72%

347 normal · 43 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% 69.9%±5.2 n=178 55% ▲
Body7% 64.7%±10.2 n=29 0% ▼
T51% 61.5%±5.1 n=216 45% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide68% 61.2%±4.7 n=266 64% ▼
Body9% 61.4%±9.9 n=35 0% ▼
T23% 62.6%±7.3 n=89 36% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.95).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.54 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: +2.5±5.5 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. (412 repeats, 385 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 19 33% −4.1±11.0
1stAd courtT 113 30% +1.6±6.3
1stAd courtWide 142 27% −0.4±5.6
1stDeuce courtBody 18 40% +2.9±11.6
1stDeuce courtT 121 24% −1.5±5.7
1stDeuce courtWide 140 31% +4.1±5.8
2ndAd courtBody 56 44% −5.4±8.8
2ndAd courtT 14 45% −4.3±12.3
2ndAd courtWide 69 47% −1.4±8.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 57 57% +8.1±8.7
2ndDeuce courtT 64 47% −3.0±8.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 49 56% +8.2±9.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 64% · −3.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.4% · won 61% · −7.3±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 57% · −11.2±11.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.5% · won 49% · +7.5±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.6% · won 47% · +5.4±11.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 8.0% · won 45% · +3.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 7.6% · won 45% · +3.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 6.2% · won 45% · +3.1±10.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.7% · won 55% · +7.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 5.1% · won 53% · +5.2±10.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 52% · +4.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.1% · won 51% · +4.0±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.3% · won 50% · +3.0±11.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 58% · +8.4±11.6 vs own baseline · +21.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Casper Ruud (6/10), Benoit Paire (5/7)
  2. FH down the line → BH inside-in → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 51% · +1.4±13.0 vs own baseline · +2.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Cameron Norrie (8/15)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 48% · −1.8±11.7 vs own baseline · −2.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Benoit Paire (3/6), Casper Ruud (5/8)
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 47% · −2.0±12.3 vs own baseline · −3.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (2/6)
  5. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 47% · −2.1±12.5 vs own baseline · −2.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Hubert Hurkacz (4/10)
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.2% · won 47% · −2.6±11.4 vs own baseline · −0.2 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

FH to the middle · rally+1.4145
FH to the middle · return+1.1175
FH to their forehand · rally+1.0294
BH to the middle · return+0.2218
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+0.1178

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · return−2.7167
BH to their backhand · rally−1.5177
FH to the middle · rally−1.3184
BH to the middle · rally−1.1142
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.6145

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Cameron Norrie, Daniil Medvedev, Dusan Lajovic, Ugo Humbert

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad68%
T serves · deuce51%
Through the middle28%
1st serve in64%
Avg rally length4.2
FH down the line32%
Deep returns29%
Points at net13%
BH down the line21%
Serve & volley8%
Wide serves · deuce42%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Unforced errors / shot9.3%
Forehand share52%
Point-ending shots21.9%
Backhand slice14%
Chipped returns5%
Run-around forehands9%
T serves · ad23%

Plays most like

  1. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005 plan v
  3. Cristian Garin 2018–2025 plan v
  4. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  5. Paul Henri Mathieu 2002–2016 plan v
  6. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001 plan v
  7. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009 plan v
  8. Flavio Cobolli 2022–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005
  2. Marcelo Rios 1995–2001
  3. Gustavo Kuerten 1997–2007

Charted matches