Mohamed Safwat

Against an average opponent

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

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 2,205 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Mohamed Safwat 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.

Serve under pressure

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.

Exploitability 0.25 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: −3.3±8.2 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. (173 repeats, 249 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

Signature patterns

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

Discovered sequences

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

1. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 51% · +9.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Pedro Martinez (6/9)
2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 46% · +4.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Stefano Travaglia (3/6)
3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.9% · won 42% · +0.3±12.0 vs own baseline · −5.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ernests Gulbis (2/9), Pedro Martinez (4/6)
4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 37% · −5.2±12.3 vs own baseline · −19.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ernests Gulbis (1/6), Riccardo Bonadio (2/6)

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.

Charted matches

• Ernests Gulbis v Mohamed Safwat L Davis Cup WG II RR · Hard · 7 Mar 2020
• Mohamed Safwat v Ernests Gulbis L Noumea CH R32 · Hard · 7 Jan 2020
• Stefano Travaglia v Mohamed Safwat L Sopot CH QF · Clay · 2 Aug 2019
• Mohamed Safwat v Pedro Martinez W Sopot CH R16 · Clay · 1 Aug 2019
• Mohamed Safwat v Riccardo Bonadio W Prague CH R32 · Clay · 24 Jul 2019
• Blaz Rola v Mohamed Safwat L Bratislava CH QF · Clay · 21 Jun 2019
• Mohamed Safwat v Eduardo Russi W Itajai R32 · Clay · 9 Apr 2014