RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 12 charted matches · 2021–2026

Hugo Gaston

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.4% ±3.1 raw 60.8% · tour 63.4% · 923 points
Return points won 37.9% ±3.3 raw 38.1% · tour 36.6% · 890 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 −0.07 ±0.15 better than 39% of ATP · raw −0.06
Shot selection −0.41 ±0.24 better than 16% of ATP · raw −0.40
Execution −0.58 ±0.52 better than 42% of ATP · raw −0.41
Tactical adaptability +0.08 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 12 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.11 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 15% 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 4,430 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Hugo Gaston 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 forehand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 243 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 52% 47.5%±6.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 18% 33.8%±9.8 41.5%
FH down the line 9% 48.7%±12.8 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 9% 33.9%±12.2 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 9% 37.0%±12.4 30.9%
FH drop shot down the line 5% 57.8%±14.6 49.6%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 174 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 44.3%±8.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 42.5%±10.2 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 33.2%±12.2 46.4%
BH slice down the line 6% 34.7%±14.3 37.1%
BH slice through the middle 6% 23.4%±12.7 35.1%
FH inside-in 6% 56.4%±14.9 54.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 149 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 35% 61.9%±9.4 52.7%
FH down the line 15% 55.5%±12.6 51.5%
BH through the middle 14% 39.9%±12.6 46.8%
BH crosscourt 13% 47.1%±13.0 49.1%
FH through the middle 11% 47.0%±13.5 47.0%
BH down the line 7% 52.2%±15.0 48.3%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 54% to the average player · 114 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 52.4%±11.7 53.4%
FH through the middle 16% 51.2%±13.3 47.3%
FH crosscourt 15% 54.6%±13.5 56.0%
BH down the line 14% 55.9%±13.6 50.6%
FH drop shot down the line 11% 57.8%±14.4 57.5%
BH crosscourt 9% 49.6%±15.0 49.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Hugo Gaston's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 85 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 41% 35% 69% / 73%
Body 17% 4% ▼ 66% / 63%
T 42% 61% ▲ 67% / 75%

457 normal · 23 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 68% 63% 72% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 66% / 63%
T 25% 32% 75% / 72%

376 normal · 62 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
Wide41% 59.4%±5.4 n=195 50% ▲
Body16% 62.6%±7.7 n=77 3% ▼
T43% 58.9%±5.2 n=208 47% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.72).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide67% 62.5%±4.4 n=293 80% ▲
Body7% 61.3%±10.2 n=32 0% ▼
T26% 61.7%±6.7 n=113 20% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.96).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.21 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: −1.1±5.2 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. (333 repeats, 561 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 28 40% +2.8±10.6
1stAd courtT 98 27% −1.2±6.4
1stAd courtWide 115 21% −5.7±5.6
1stDeuce courtBody 26 46% +9.7±11.0
1stDeuce courtT 118 25% +0.3±5.9
1stDeuce courtWide 126 32% +4.3±6.1
2ndAd courtBody 75 51% +1.9±8.0
2ndAd courtT 46 51% +1.8±9.4
2ndAd courtWide 58 56% +7.9±8.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 83 45% −4.1±7.7
2ndDeuce courtT 54 55% +5.0±8.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 62 45% −3.1±8.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH drop shot down the line used 3.6% · won 64% · ±0.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 63% · −0.6±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 3.5% · won 63% · −0.8±11.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 63% · −0.8±11.2 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 6.8% · won 61% · −3.0±9.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, short used 5.6% · won 49% · +9.2±11.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 5.8% · won 36% · −3.3±11.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 8.2% · won 54% · +7.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.9% · won 50% · +3.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 15.8% · won 48% · +1.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.3% · won 46% · −0.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.9% · won 41% · −5.6±10.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 54% · +5.5±12.8 vs own baseline · +13.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 47% · −1.6±12.5 vs own baseline · −2.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ugo Blanchet (3/6)
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 0.9% · won 45% · −3.1±13.0 vs own baseline · −7.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (3/6)
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 46% · −2.5±9.0 vs own baseline · −3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Thijs Boogaard (2/7), Ugo Blanchet (4/10)
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 44% · −4.7±12.0 vs own baseline · −10.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ugo Blanchet (3/7)
  6. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 44% · −4.8±11.2 vs own baseline · −8.9 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 their backhand · rally+2.7287
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.8127
FH to the middle · return+0.1144
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−0.3138
BH to the middle · return−0.3173

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−2.0206
BH to the middle · return−2.0254
Wide 1st serve · ad court+0.2219
T 1st serve · deuce court+0.5230
FH to their backhand · rally+0.7277

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot7.6%
Wide serves · ad67%
Deep returns33%
Forehand share56%
Through the middle26%
BH down the line22%
Serve & volley7%
Point-ending shots22.9%
Chipped returns13%
Avg rally length3.8
T serves · deuce43%
Wide serves · deuce41%
Points at net9%
Backhand slice12%
Unforced errors / shot8.5%
FH down the line27%
Run-around forehands8%
1st serve in55%
T serves · ad26%

Plays most like

  1. Benoit Paire 2012–2022 plan v
  2. Mattia Bellucci 2022–2025 plan v
  3. Yannick Hanfmann 2021–2025 plan v
  4. Alexander Bublik 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Luciano Darderi 2022–2026 plan v
  6. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005 plan v
  7. Pedro Martinez 2019–2026 plan v
  8. Marco Cecchinato 2018–2022 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005
  2. Gustavo Kuerten 1997–2007
  3. Albert Costa 1996–2002

Charted matches