RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 21 charted matches · 2013–2023

Jeremy Chardy

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.9% ±2.8 raw 62.0% · tour 63.4% · 1,689 points
Return points won 36.0% ±2.9 raw 30.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,550 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 ±0.08 better than 40% of ATP · raw −0.07
Shot selection +0.15 ±0.20 better than 70% of ATP · raw +0.15
Execution −1.55 ±0.82 better than 9% of ATP · raw −1.60
Tactical adaptability −0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 19 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.76 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 34% 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 6,671 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Jeremy Chardy 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 · 410 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 20% 40.9%±7.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 17% 43.5%±8.6 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 39.8%±9.6 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 12% 43.6%±9.7 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 10% 21.0%±8.5 35.1%
FH inside-out 10% 50.6%±10.6 51.8%
FH inside-in 9% 57.8%±10.8 54.7%
BH slice down the line 6% 34.2%±11.6 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 248 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 35% 41.2%±7.9 51.5%
FH crosscourt 23% 50.1%±9.5 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 39.7%±10.1 47.0%
BH through the middle 5% 46.6%±14.3 46.8%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 46.5%±14.7 47.0%
BH down the line 4% 48.8%±15.0 48.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 244 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 34% 44.5%±8.0 46.6%
FH down the line 32% 36.3%±8.0 44.7%
FH through the middle 27% 43.9%±8.9 41.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 227 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 24% 45.0%±9.6 46.9%
BH through the middle 16% 39.3%±10.8 43.0%
BH slice crosscourt 14% 31.7%±10.7 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 11% 28.4%±11.2 32.6%
BH down the line 11% 43.8%±12.4 44.2%
FH inside-out 9% 47.0%±13.1 51.7%
BH slice down the line 7% 27.6%±12.4 33.3%
FH inside-in 5% 55.7%±14.9 53.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Jeremy Chardy's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 159 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 43% 75% / 73%
Body 15% 23% 58% / 63%
T 42% 34% ▼ 79% / 75%

833 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 56% 76% / 73%
Body 13% 15% 66% / 63%
T 39% 29% ▼ 66% / 72%

681 normal · 124 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
Wide43% 64.4%±3.9 n=369 43%
Body15% 53.6%±6.4 n=134 2% ▼
T42% 64.7%±4.0 n=365 55% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.010): serve T more. Gap 1.9 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 62.8%±3.9 n=396 62% ▲
Body14% 60.0%±6.8 n=109 0% ▼
T37% 59.8%±4.4 n=300 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.63).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.80 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: +0.7±4.5 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. (642 repeats, 991 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 47 31% −5.7±8.7
1stAd courtT 216 26% −1.9±4.6
1stAd courtWide 217 19% −8.5±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 60 34% −2.3±8.2
1stDeuce courtT 237 18% −6.9±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 221 27% −0.4±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 65 41% −8.5±8.3
2ndAd courtT 46 47% −2.2±9.4
2ndAd courtWide 141 42% −6.5±6.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 62 44% −4.8±8.5
2ndDeuce courtT 161 51% +1.0±6.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 68 49% +1.3±8.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 70% · −1.3±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 65% · −6.2±10.2 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 63% · −8.1±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.3% · won 63% · −8.5±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 63% · −8.3±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.2% · won 45% · +10.7±10.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.0% · won 43% · +8.7±11.1 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 40% · +5.4±11.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 37% · +2.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 37% · +2.2±11.3 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 54% · +13.7±11.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.0% · won 45% · +4.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 2.8% · won 42% · +2.0±11.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.1% · won 40% · −0.3±9.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 37% · −3.0±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 Jeremy Chardy wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 51% · +7.1±11.7 vs own baseline · +9.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 50% · +6.0±12.4 vs own baseline · +9.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Richard Gasquet (2/6)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.5% · won 46% · +2.4±12.8 vs own baseline · −5.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 45% · +1.0±13.0 vs own baseline · +2.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 43% · −1.1±12.6 vs own baseline · −7.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Borna Coric (1/6)
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 42% · −1.5±12.9 vs own baseline · −12.7 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 · ad court+1.6374
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+1.6343
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.0340
FH to the middle · return+0.4275
Body 1st serve · deuce court+0.4120

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · ad court−2.4301
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.7175
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.6326
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.5321
BH to their forehand · rally−1.4123

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

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share63%
Run-around forehands38%
Backhand slice46%
BH down the line28%
Unforced errors / shot12.9%
Point-ending shots29.0%
1st serve in65%
FH down the line34%
Deep returns31%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Wide serves · ad49%
T serves · ad37%
Points at net9%
Chipped returns11%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · deuce42%
Drop shots / shot0.7%
Through the middle21%
Avg rally length3.4

Plays most like

  1. Milos Raonic 2011–2024 plan v
  2. Jack Sock 2014–2022 plan v
  3. Alexei Popyrin 2019–2026 plan v
  4. Thanasi Kokkinakis 2013–2024 plan v
  5. Joao Fonseca 2024–2026 plan v
  6. Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2007–2022 plan v
  7. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010 plan v
  8. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Carlos Moya 1997–2007
  2. Jim Courier 1989–1999
  3. Marc Rosset 1991–2000

Charted matches