RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 13 charted matches · 2000–2009

Nicolas Massu

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.2% ±3.1 raw 56.7% · tour 63.4% · 1,187 points
Return points won 36.1% ±3.1 raw 32.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,106 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 −0.22 ±0.10 better than 12% of ATP · raw −0.22
Shot selection +0.29 ±0.17 better than 78% of ATP · raw +0.28
Execution −1.15 ±0.48 better than 20% of ATP · raw −1.27
Tactical adaptability +0.05 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 13 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.93 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 23% 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 5,998 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Nicolas Massu 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 · 454 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 27% 39.0%±6.7 43.7%
BH crosscourt 25% 48.9%±7.2 47.6%
FH inside-out 15% 52.7%±8.8 51.8%
BH down the line 7% 37.1%±11.0 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 7% 34.1%±11.0 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 42.4%±12.0 42.5%
FH inside-in 6% 51.0%±12.3 54.7%
FH through the middle 5% 48.9%±12.8 45.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 298 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 33% 40.1%±7.4 43.8%
BH crosscourt 28% 48.6%±8.1 48.0%
FH inside-out 11% 37.6%±11.0 52.6%
BH down the line 7% 47.1%±12.8 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 7% 40.1%±12.6 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 7% 29.3%±11.7 35.1%
FH inside-in 5% 56.7%±13.8 54.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 262 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 41.3%±7.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 32% 34.3%±7.7 41.5%
FH down the line 25% 37.6%±8.6 44.7%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 249 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 37% 46.2%±7.8 51.5%
FH crosscourt 27% 54.6%±8.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 20% 42.6%±9.8 47.0%
BH through the middle 9% 43.7%±12.6 46.8%
FH down the line + approach 4% 71.3%±13.4 70.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +13 How much less varied Nicolas Massu's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 129 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 34% 21% ▼ 63% / 73%
Body 10% 14% 62% / 63%
T 56% 66% ▲ 73% / 75%

572 normal · 29 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 60% 72% ▲ 64% / 73%
Body 11% 9% 56% / 63%
T 29% 19% ▼ 69% / 72%

455 normal · 100 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
Wide33% 54.9%±5.4 n=199 46% ▲
Body10% 55.7%±8.5 n=63 0% ▼
T56% 57.8%±4.2 n=339 54% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide62% 57.5%±4.2 n=346 60% ▼
Body10% 51.2%±8.8 n=58 0% ▼
T27% 58.6%±6.0 n=151 40% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.34).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.36 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: +3.2±3.7 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. (497 repeats, 633 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 18 38% +0.7±11.5
1stAd courtT 123 24% −3.6±5.7
1stAd courtWide 168 29% +2.1±5.3
1stDeuce courtBody 40 43% +6.2±9.7
1stDeuce courtT 149 23% −1.9±5.2
1stDeuce courtWide 126 22% −5.3±5.4
2ndAd courtBody 35 49% −0.4±10.2
2ndAd courtT 40 45% −3.9±9.8
2ndAd courtWide 132 44% −4.8±6.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 77 48% −0.7±7.9
2ndDeuce courtT 99 43% −7.1±7.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 72 39% −9.4±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-in used 3.1% · won 63% · +0.4±10.6 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.8% · won 61% · −0.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 60% · −2.1±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 58% · −3.7±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 6.4% · won 59% · −3.3±8.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 6.2% · won 46% · +11.8±10.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 5.5% · won 39% · +4.8±10.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 7.9% · won 37% · +3.4±9.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 37% · +3.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH down the line, mid used 4.0% · won 37% · +3.0±11.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 49% · +9.5±10.2 vs own baseline
  2. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 50% · +10.2±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 45% · +5.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 45% · +5.8±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 3.2% · won 44% · +4.9±10.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Nicolas Massu 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, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 51% · +8.4±11.4 vs own baseline · +0.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +8.7±12.7 vs own baseline · +18.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 51% · +7.6±12.9 vs own baseline · +7.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marat Safin (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.8% · won 49% · +5.5±11.5 vs own baseline · +8.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Juan Carlos Ferrero (3/6)
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 46% · +3.2±12.0 vs own baseline · −2.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Guillermo Coria (2/8)
  6. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 46% · +3.1±12.2 vs own baseline · −4.6 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 2nd serve · ad court+0.2156
FH to their forehand · serve +1±0.0196
FH to the middle · return−0.1209
FH to their forehand · rally−0.2386
T 1st serve · ad court−0.3151

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · ad court−2.3201
BH to the middle · return−1.0255
FH to the middle · return−0.9147
BH to their backhand · return−0.5215
FH to their backhand · rally−0.5419

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%
Wide serves · ad62%
T serves · deuce56%
Run-around forehands35%
Through the middle29%
Avg rally length4.2
Backhand slice24%
FH down the line31%
Deep returns25%
Serve & volley2%
Unforced errors / shot9.2%
Points at net8%
1st serve in59%
Chipped returns9%
Point-ending shots19.7%
Drop shots / shot0.5%
BH down the line14%
Wide serves · deuce33%
T serves · ad27%

Plays most like

  1. Pablo Cuevas 2015–2021 plan v
  2. Juncheng Shang 2024–2026 plan v
  3. Daniel Elahi Galan 2020–2025 plan v
  4. Cristian Garin 2018–2025 plan v
  5. Albert Ramos 2014–2025 plan v
  6. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v
  7. Marton Fucsovics 2018–2026 plan v
  8. Jelle Sels 2018–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Juncheng Shang 2024–2026
  2. Daniel Elahi Galan 2020–2025
  3. Cristian Garin 2018–2025

Charted matches