RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 29 charted matches · 2024–2026

Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 69.7% ±2.4 raw 70.3% · tour 63.4% · 2,706 points
Return points won 30.4% ±2.5 raw 26.0% · tour 36.6% · 2,505 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 −0.26 ±0.07 better than 9% of ATP · raw −0.25
Shot selection −0.11 ±0.24 better than 38% of ATP · raw −0.10
Execution +0.77 ±0.79 better than 90% of ATP · raw +0.87
Tactical adaptability +0.22 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 26 matches
Adaptation speed +0.17 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.39 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 10% 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 10,220 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 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 · 434 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 23% 27.7%±6.8 43.7%
BH crosscourt 22% 32.0%±7.2 47.6%
BH down the line 13% 43.0%±9.4 46.4%
FH inside-out 11% 44.0%±9.8 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 36.6%±9.7 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 9% 36.1%±10.1 35.1%
FH inside-in 6% 54.2%±12.1 54.7%
FH through the middle 6% 41.0%±12.2 45.2%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 396 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 22% 34.8%±7.5 43.0%
BH crosscourt 21% 41.2%±8.0 46.9%
BH slice through the middle 18% 21.7%±7.1 32.6%
BH down the line 13% 42.0%±9.6 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 13% 32.6%±9.2 40.9%
FH inside-out 6% 46.0%±12.7 51.7%
FH inside-in 3% 56.7%±14.2 53.6%
FH through the middle 3% 39.6%±14.7 44.4%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 339 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 30% 35.2%±7.2 41.5%
FH crosscourt 25% 36.2%±7.8 46.6%
FH down the line 22% 34.7%±8.2 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 12% 19.5%±8.3 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 7% 32.2%±11.6 30.9%

Return +1: drive to your forehand side

position worth 41% to the average player · 270 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 31% 40.5%±8.0 39.4%
FH crosscourt 29% 37.6%±8.1 45.3%
FH down the line 15% 32.5%±10.0 40.9%
FH slice through the middle 14% 22.6%±9.1 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 8% 21.6%±10.4 30.3%
FH slice down the line 4% 20.4%±12.1 25.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +2 How much less varied Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 154 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 49% 79% / 73%
Body 8% 7% 62% / 63%
T 47% 44% 79% / 75%

1,386 normal · 41 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 56% 82% / 73%
Body 5% 4% 61% / 63%
T 41% 40% 77% / 72%

1,163 normal · 113 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
Wide45% 73.4%±2.8 n=647 58% ▲
Body8% 65.7%±6.5 n=114 0% ▼
T47% 68.8%±2.9 n=666 42% ▼

Off equilibrium (p = 0.044): serve wide more. Gap 2.8 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 71.7%±2.8 n=686 67% ▲
Body5% 63.1%±8.1 n=66 0% ▼
T41% 69.0%±3.2 n=524 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.09).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.77 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: +3.9±2.7 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. (1,217 repeats, 1,428 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 40 33% −4.0±9.2
1stAd courtT 319 22% −5.9±3.7
1stAd courtWide 373 21% −6.1±3.3
1stDeuce courtBody 59 31% −5.2±8.1
1stDeuce courtT 421 19% −6.3±3.0
1stDeuce courtWide 377 17% −9.7±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 123 48% −1.8±6.6
2ndAd courtT 101 39% −10.5±7.0
2ndAd courtWide 233 38% −10.5±4.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 106 32% −16.9±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 238 40% −9.8±4.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 115 35% −12.6±6.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.5% · won 73% · −5.8±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 66% · −13.1±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 64% · −14.5±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 63% · −15.7±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 61% · −18.1±8.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.2% · won 39% · +9.3±9.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 37% · +7.4±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.1% · won 36% · +6.2±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 33% · +2.9±9.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.2% · won 32% · +1.8±9.9 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 4.0% · won 42% · +7.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 2.3% · won 44% · +9.5±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 41% · +6.5±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 40% · +5.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 39% · +4.4±10.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → FH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +16.1±12.3 vs own baseline · +7.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.6% · won 50% · +8.1±11.5 vs own baseline · +15.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.4% · won 48% · +5.8±12.5 vs own baseline · +0.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 47% · +5.7±12.8 vs own baseline · +10.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 46% · +4.7±12.4 vs own baseline · +0.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 45% · +3.2±12.8 vs own baseline · −1.4 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

Wide 1st serve · deuce court+7.1647
Wide 1st serve · ad court+5.6686
T 1st serve · deuce court+5.1666
T 2nd serve · deuce court+4.6201
T 2nd serve · ad court+3.9253

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · deuce court−3.2551
T 1st serve · ad court−2.8474
T 2nd serve · deuce court−2.6238
BH to their forehand · rally−2.3120
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.2233

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.29, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.94, Jack Draper +1.88, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.79, Pedro Martinez +1.70

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.35, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.19, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.15, Bernard Tomic +0.04, Adrian Mannarino +0.03

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

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot13.8%
Forehand share62%
Point-ending shots31.9%
Run-around forehands33%
Chipped returns31%
Deep returns36%
1st serve in66%
Through the middle29%
Serve & volley19%
Backhand slice29%
BH down the line24%
Wide serves · ad54%
FH down the line33%
T serves · ad41%
Wide serves · deuce45%
T serves · deuce47%
Points at net12%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Avg rally length3.0

Plays most like

  1. Tim Van Rijthoven 2021–2023 plan v
  2. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Gabriel Diallo 2024–2025 plan v
  4. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Vasek Pospisil 2013–2023 plan v
  7. Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2007–2022 plan v
  8. Denis Shapovalov 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Roger Federer 1998–2021
  2. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010
  3. Robin Soderling 2004–2011

Charted matches