RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 21 charted matches · 2022–2025

Matteo Arnaldi

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.8% ±3.0 raw 59.7% · tour 63.4% · 1,746 points
Return points won 38.5% ±3.1 raw 35.9% · tour 36.6% · 1,639 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 ±0.00 ±0.05 better than 57% of ATP · raw ±0.00
Shot selection −0.18 ±0.32 better than 32% of ATP · raw −0.18
Execution −0.22 ±0.92 better than 56% of ATP · raw −0.24
Tactical adaptability ±0.00 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 20 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.65 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 45% 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 8,453 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Matteo Arnaldi 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 · 564 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 46.3%±5.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 24% 40.9%±6.5 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 45.7%±8.8 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 42.0%±10.8 42.5%
FH inside-out 5% 48.6%±12.1 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 30.3%±11.5 35.1%
FH inside-in 3% 49.8%±13.3 54.7%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 351 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 46.4%±7.6 46.6%
FH down the line 26% 48.1%±7.8 44.7%
FH through the middle 22% 34.7%±8.0 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 10% 26.6%±9.7 24.5%
FH slice down the line 7% 32.1%±11.6 25.6%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 31.8%±13.5 30.9%
FH drop shot crosscourt 3% 48.3%±15.0 52.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 290 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 45.5%±6.5 46.9%
BH through the middle 27% 43.5%±8.2 43.0%
BH down the line 9% 47.5%±12.1 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 51.6%±12.5 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.9%±13.7 32.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 289 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 40% 39.7%±6.9 48.0%
BH through the middle 24% 38.6%±8.4 43.8%
BH down the line 14% 38.8%±10.3 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 43.2%±12.1 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 31.3%±13.5 35.1%
FH inside-out 3% 51.8%±15.0 52.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Matteo Arnaldi's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 179 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 56% ▲ 70% / 73%
Body 10% 2% 61% / 63%
T 43% 42% 72% / 75%

858 normal · 43 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 55% ▲ 66% / 73%
Body 3% 4% 66% / 63%
T 51% 41% ▼ 68% / 72%

708 normal · 136 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
Wide47% 61.2%±3.8 n=426 58% ▲
Body10% 60.1%±7.4 n=89 0% ▼
T43% 61.1%±3.9 n=386 42%

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

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 56.0%±3.9 n=398 34% ▼
Body3% 67.2%±10.1 n=28 3%
T50% 59.6%±3.8 n=418 63% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.15).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.31 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: −1.8±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. (595 repeats, 1,108 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 38 41% +4.3±9.8
1stAd courtT 222 29% +1.1±4.7
1stAd courtWide 227 29% +2.0±4.7
1stDeuce courtBody 45 35% −2.0±9.0
1stDeuce courtT 222 24% −1.4±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 257 28% +1.1±4.4
2ndAd courtBody 76 43% −6.2±7.9
2ndAd courtT 56 52% +2.8±8.9
2ndAd courtWide 164 55% +6.5±5.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 65 42% −7.2±8.3
2ndDeuce courtT 159 48% −1.6±6.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 106 44% −4.4±7.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 64% · +0.1±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 63% · ±0.0±9.4 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 63% · −0.3±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 59% · −4.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 56% · −7.5±10.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.8% · won 51% · +11.1±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.5% · won 47% · +7.8±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.0% · won 44% · +4.9±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 45% · +5.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.3% · won 42% · +2.6±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.6% · won 51% · +6.9±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.8% · won 51% · +7.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 50% · +6.3±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.9% · won 48% · +3.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.6% · won 48% · +3.8±10.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 54% · +7.7±10.1 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrey Rublev (5/9)
  2. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +10.2±12.9 vs own baseline · +24.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +6.4±12.8 vs own baseline · +7.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 51% · +4.9±11.6 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andrey Rublev (4/6)
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, short → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 50% · +3.9±12.6 vs own baseline · +3.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 47% · +1.2±7.7 vs own baseline · −0.7 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

BH to the middle · return+2.3313
BH to the middle · serve +1+1.9135
T 2nd serve · deuce court+1.4180
BH to their backhand · serve +1+0.8192
BH to their backhand · return+0.7224

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−4.1157
FH to the middle · return−2.0271
FH to their forehand · return +1−1.7163
FH to their backhand · return−1.4126
BH to their forehand · rally−1.1168

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.70, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.66, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.51, Jack Draper +1.46, Pedro Martinez +1.40

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.21, Fabian Marozsan +1.20, Pedro Martinez +1.08, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.06, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.05

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · ad50%
Drop shots / shot3.4%
FH down the line37%
Unforced errors / shot11.6%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Deep returns31%
Through the middle26%
Run-around forehands21%
Avg rally length4.1
Point-ending shots24.8%
Chipped returns16%
Serve & volley4%
Points at net10%
Forehand share52%
T serves · deuce43%
Backhand slice16%
Wide serves · ad47%
BH down the line17%
1st serve in56%

Plays most like

  1. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  2. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  3. Holger Rune 2019–2025 plan v
  4. Frances Tiafoe 2016–2026 plan v
  5. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  6. Lucas Pouille 2015–2024 plan v
  7. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  8. James Duckworth 2014–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  2. Nicolas Kiefer 1999–2008
  3. Thomas Johansson 1996–2005

Charted matches