RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 48 charted matches · 2019–2025

Nicolas Jarry

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 68.6% ±2.3 raw 66.1% · tour 63.4% · 3,832 points
Return points won 35.8% ±2.5 raw 32.8% · tour 36.6% · 3,743 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 −0.23 ±0.09 better than 9% of ATP · raw −0.23
Shot selection +0.02 ±0.14 better than 54% of ATP · raw +0.02
Execution −0.45 ±0.54 better than 46% of ATP · raw −0.44
Tactical adaptability +0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 48 matches
Adaptation speed +0.09 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.09 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 16% 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 16,832 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Nicolas Jarry 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 middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,015 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 51.5%±5.1 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 50.8%±5.5 51.5%
FH through the middle 18% 38.8%±5.6 47.0%
BH crosscourt 15% 44.3%±6.2 49.1%
BH through the middle 13% 46.0%±6.6 46.8%
BH down the line 3% 50.3%±11.3 48.3%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 53.9%±13.7 47.0%
BH slice through the middle 1% 30.2%±13.1 44.8%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 811 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 40.4%±4.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 42.5%±5.1 43.7%
BH down the line 9% 42.7%±8.5 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 33.6%±9.7 42.5%
FH inside-out 5% 51.4%±10.4 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.1%±9.9 35.1%
FH inside-in 3% 54.4%±12.4 54.7%
BH slice down the line 1% 32.5%±13.6 37.1%

Serve +1: drive to your middle

position worth 52% to the average player · 698 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 59.7%±5.7 56.1%
FH through the middle 22% 42.9%±6.2 45.8%
FH crosscourt 22% 67.0%±5.9 58.2%
BH crosscourt 12% 38.4%±7.8 51.8%
BH through the middle 9% 46.0%±8.9 43.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 64.9%±12.1 71.4%
BH down the line 2% 47.7%±14.5 51.3%
FH slice through the middle 2% 37.3%±14.1 34.7%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 552 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 21% 40.8%±6.9 46.5%
FH crosscourt 19% 48.8%±7.4 52.4%
FH through the middle 16% 44.4%±7.8 46.5%
FH down the line 16% 49.9%±7.8 51.8%
BH crosscourt 16% 47.0%±7.9 48.7%
BH down the line 5% 49.3%±12.1 48.4%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 30.6%±12.6 45.0%
BH slice through the middle 2% 41.4%±14.1 43.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Nicolas Jarry's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 312 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 56% ▲ 74% / 73%
Body 6% 4% 64% / 63%
T 51% 40% ▼ 74% / 75%

1,903 normal · 77 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 53% 75% / 73%
Body 8% 8% 67% / 63%
T 38% 40% 75% / 72%

1,587 normal · 235 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% 67.1%±2.6 n=854 56% ▲
Body6% 58.2%±6.7 n=118 0% ▼
T51% 65.9%±2.4 n=1,008 44% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.06).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide55% 66.5%±2.4 n=993 55%
Body8% 64.0%±6.1 n=139 0% ▼
T38% 66.4%±2.9 n=690 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.78).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.45 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: +3.1±2.9 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. (1,657 repeats, 2,049 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 101 32% −4.9±6.7
1stAd courtT 437 24% −4.4±3.2
1stAd courtWide 556 24% −3.3±2.9
1stDeuce courtBody 132 33% −4.0±6.1
1stDeuce courtT 542 27% +2.3±3.1
1stDeuce courtWide 603 24% −2.8±2.8
2ndAd courtBody 191 45% −4.2±5.5
2ndAd courtT 95 48% −1.5±7.3
2ndAd courtWide 382 51% +2.5±4.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 197 37% −11.7±5.3
2ndDeuce courtT 349 46% −4.1±4.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 123 48% −0.1±6.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 69% · −0.4±6.0 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 66% · −2.8±7.2 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 63% · −6.1±6.8 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 60% · −9.6±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 2.1% · won 57% · −12.0±8.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 11.0% · won 42% · +3.3±4.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 11.0% · won 41% · +2.6±4.4 vs own baseline
  3. vs body serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 2.7% · won 41% · +2.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 40% · +1.4±6.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 6.6% · won 38% · −0.2±5.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 57% · +12.6±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 51% · +6.7±8.5 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.5% · won 51% · +6.7±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 49% · +5.2±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 51% · +6.8±9.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 62% · +14.8±8.6 vs own baseline · +7.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alexander Zverev (9/13), Daniil Medvedev (5/6)
  2. Wide serve → BH slice through the middle return → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 69% · +22.0±11.2 vs own baseline · +19.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 59% · +11.6±8.5 vs own baseline · +5.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (3/6)
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 59% · +11.5±9.5 vs own baseline · +6.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 65% · +18.3±11.8 vs own baseline · +15.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. T serve → BH through the middle return → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +12.0±10.1 vs own baseline · +6.4 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 their forehand · return+5.0130
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+4.3854
T 1st serve · deuce court+3.51,008
Wide 1st serve · ad court+3.5993
T 1st serve · ad court+3.4690

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · deuce court−3.9910
BH to the middle · return−2.8894
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−2.6123
T 1st serve · ad court−2.5702
T 1st serve · deuce court−2.5859

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.74, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.43, Jack Draper +1.43, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.34, Casper Ruud +1.24

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan −0.99, Miomir Kecmanovic −1.05, Roberto Carballes Baena −1.12, Pedro Martinez −1.13, Jenson Brooksby −1.23

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

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot16.6%
Point-ending shots34.8%
Deep returns39%
Through the middle29%
1st serve in65%
T serves · deuce51%
Forehand share58%
Run-around forehands27%
FH down the line34%
Wide serves · ad55%
Wide serves · deuce43%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Serve & volley6%
T serves · ad38%
Points at net10%
Backhand slice17%
Avg rally length3.5
Chipped returns6%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Gabriel Diallo 2024–2025 plan v
  2. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Reilly Opelka 2019–2025 plan v
  4. Arthur Rinderknech 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Aslan Karatsev 2020–2023 plan v
  6. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  7. Sam Querrey 2010–2022 plan v
  8. Vasek Pospisil 2013–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. James Blake 2002–2011
  2. Mario Ancic 2002–2008
  3. Marat Safin 1998–2009

Charted matches