RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 30 charted matches · 2018–2026

Marcos Giron

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.3% ±2.7 raw 61.0% · tour 63.4% · 2,411 points
Return points won 36.7% ±2.8 raw 32.8% · tour 36.6% · 2,372 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 ±0.14 better than 26% of ATP · raw −0.12
Shot selection −0.29 ±0.18 better than 24% of ATP · raw −0.28
Execution +0.02 ±0.52 better than 69% of ATP · raw +0.04
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 30 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.66 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 43% 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 11,941 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Marcos Giron 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 · 836 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 44.8%±4.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 39.7%±5.4 43.7%
BH down the line 8% 42.2%±8.8 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 32.7%±8.9 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 6% 30.2%±8.8 35.1%
FH inside-out 5% 51.3%±10.2 51.8%
FH inside-in 4% 58.7%±11.3 54.7%
FH through the middle 2% 43.4%±13.4 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 572 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 20% 41.5%±6.9 47.0%
FH crosscourt 20% 56.4%±7.0 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 54.7%±7.1 51.5%
BH through the middle 16% 40.5%±7.6 46.8%
BH crosscourt 14% 49.3%±8.2 49.1%
BH down the line 6% 43.6%±11.3 48.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 510 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 50.7%±5.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 37.3%±6.6 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 45.7%±9.5 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 8% 29.5%±9.6 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 40.8%±10.9 42.1%
FH inside-in 4% 58.2%±12.7 54.3%
FH inside-out 3% 59.8%±13.4 52.6%
BH slice down the line 2% 33.9%±14.2 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 466 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 38% 45.8%±5.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 30% 42.1%±6.4 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 42.7%±7.5 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 7% 22.9%±9.6 24.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Marcos Giron's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 226 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 56% 65% / 73%
Body 5% 0% 62% / 63%
T 46% 44% 78% / 75%

1,196 normal · 59 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 47% ▼ 72% / 73%
Body 6% 8% 65% / 63%
T 38% 45% 71% / 72%

984 normal · 167 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
Wide50% 61.0%±3.1 n=625 63% ▲
Body4% 62.8%±8.6 n=55 0% ▼
T46% 59.6%±3.3 n=575 37% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.67).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide55% 61.6%±3.1 n=629 48% ▼
Body6% 62.1%±8.0 n=69 0% ▼
T39% 61.2%±3.6 n=453 52% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.98).
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: −1.0±3.3 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. (1,087 repeats, 1,259 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 48 37% +0.3±9.0
1stAd courtT 303 29% +0.9±4.1
1stAd courtWide 356 26% −1.5±3.7
1stDeuce courtBody 70 32% −4.7±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 355 21% −3.9±3.4
1stDeuce courtWide 372 23% −4.5±3.4
2ndAd courtBody 111 46% −3.4±6.9
2ndAd courtT 49 53% +3.6±9.2
2ndAd courtWide 259 47% −1.8±4.8
2ndDeuce courtBody 158 46% −3.4±6.0
2ndDeuce courtT 198 48% −1.5±5.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 91 45% −3.1±7.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 66% · +2.3±7.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 61% · −2.4±7.7 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.0% · won 59% · −4.2±9.6 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 59% · −4.5±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 58% · −5.1±9.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 49% · +11.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.6% · won 45% · +8.2±9.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.0% · won 46% · +8.9±10.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.1% · won 44% · +7.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.0% · won 44% · +7.2±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.9% · won 54% · +8.2±8.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 54% · +7.8±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · +6.6±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.3% · won 55% · +9.3±10.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 52% · +6.3±9.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.4% · won 58% · +11.9±11.4 vs own baseline · +13.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 54% · +8.2±10.6 vs own baseline · +8.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 53% · +6.7±9.5 vs own baseline · +7.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jenson Brooksby (2/6), Botic Van De Zandschulp (5/10)
  4. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 54% · +7.8±11.3 vs own baseline · +6.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 54% · +7.8±11.3 vs own baseline · +12.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Learner Tien (13/21)
  6. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 56% · +10.0±12.6 vs own baseline · +19.4 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

BH to the middle · serve +1+2.9200
BH to their backhand · return +1+2.1163
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.8227
BH slice to the middle · return+1.6135
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.5142

Most exposed to

FH to the middle · return−3.5409
FH to their forehand · return−2.9192
BH to their forehand · rally−2.6297
BH to their forehand · return−2.3124
BH to the middle · return−2.2435

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.53, Jack Draper +2.30, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.11, Nishesh Basavareddy +2.03, Novak Djokovic +1.89

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.09, Fabian Marozsan +0.96, Pedro Martinez +0.91, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.88, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.88

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Roman Safiullin, Tomas Machac, Miomir Kecmanovic, Roberto Bautista Agut, Tommy Paul

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle29%
Wide serves · deuce50%
Run-around forehands28%
Deep returns34%
Wide serves · ad55%
Avg rally length4.3
Chipped returns17%
T serves · deuce46%
Forehand share54%
T serves · ad39%
Backhand slice19%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Unforced errors / shot9.4%
Serve & volley2%
1st serve in60%
FH down the line29%
Point-ending shots20.4%
BH down the line16%
Points at net7%

Plays most like

  1. Taylor Fritz 2016–2026 plan v
  2. Rinky Hijikata 2023–2026 plan v
  3. Casper Ruud 2017–2026 plan v
  4. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  5. Andreas Seppi 2008–2021 plan v
  6. Brandon Nakashima 2020–2026 plan v
  7. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  8. Arthur Cazaux 2020–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  2. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  3. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006

Charted matches