RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 5 charted matches · 2022–2025

Emilio Nava

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.8% ±3.7 raw 66.3% · tour 63.4% · 487 points
Return points won 36.2% ±3.8 raw 33.1% · tour 36.6% · 526 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 −0.13 ±0.10 better than 23% of ATP · raw −0.13
Shot selection +0.50 ±0.42 better than 93% of ATP · raw +0.50
Execution −1.45 ±1.41 better than 11% of ATP · raw −1.40

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 2,388 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Emilio Nava 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 · 150 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 41.0%±8.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 33% 47.5%±9.9 43.7%
FH inside-out 9% 46.6%±14.3 51.8%
BH down the line 7% 36.4%±14.2 46.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 116 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 51.0%±11.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 22% 43.1%±12.1 47.0%
FH down the line 20% 49.5%±12.5 51.5%
BH through the middle 17% 48.4%±13.0 46.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 57.8%±13.5 49.1%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 79 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 38% 37.2%±11.2 43.0%
BH crosscourt 37% 41.6%±11.6 46.9%
BH down the line 15% 37.0%±14.0 44.2%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 73 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 51% 42.7%±10.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 33% 30.2%±11.4 41.5%
FH down the line 16% 37.3%±14.1 44.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Emilio Nava's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 41 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 13% ▼ 75% / 73%
Body 11% 0% ▼ 62% / 63%
T 48% 88% ▲ 76% / 75%

246 normal · 8 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 55% 70% / 73%
Body 14% 21% 63% / 63%
T 30% 24% 76% / 72%

199 normal · 33 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
Wide40% 64.9%±6.9 n=101 41% ▲
Body11% 61.9%±10.6 n=27 0% ▼
T50% 66.1%±6.2 n=126 59% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide56% 65.1%±6.2 n=129 56%
Body15% 67.4%±9.6 n=35 2% ▼
T29% 72.1%±7.5 n=68 42% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.37).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.64 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±5.9 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. (190 repeats, 286 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 19 39% +2.0±11.5
1stAd courtT 79 31% +2.6±7.3
1stAd courtWide 65 32% +4.5±7.9
1stDeuce courtBody 21 35% −1.4±11.0
1stDeuce courtT 53 22% −2.8±7.5
1stDeuce courtWide 91 25% −2.3±6.5
2ndAd courtBody 33 36% −13.2±10.0
2ndAd courtT 14 43% −6.6±12.3
2ndAd courtWide 44 47% −1.7±9.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 54 50% +0.6±9.0
2ndDeuce courtT 20 46% −3.9±11.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 33 42% −6.1±10.2

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 7.7% · won 68% · −8.3±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 7.7% · won 66% · −10.3±11.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 11.1% · won 34% · +2.0±10.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 8.4% · won 53% · +7.9±11.5 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 9.5% · won 48% · +3.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.6% · won 47% · +2.1±11.8 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 9.5% · won 44% · −0.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 1.8% · won 53% · +7.4±12.1 vs own baseline · +16.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by John Millman (4/7)
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.4% · won 47% · +1.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +5.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by John Millman (5/9)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 43% · −2.2±11.9 vs own baseline · −7.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by John Millman (2/6), Casper Ruud (5/12)

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

T 1st serve · deuce court+1.2126
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.5129
BH to their backhand · rally−0.7138
FH to their forehand · rally−3.7139

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · rally−0.9139
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+2.0144

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Richard Gasquet, Nishesh Basavareddy, Arthur Cazaux, Jaume Munar, Daniel Evans

Charted matches