RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 7 charted matches · 2021–2024

Pavel Kotov

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.8% ±3.6 raw 58.3% · tour 63.4% · 492 points
Return points won 32.8% ±3.5 raw 28.0% · tour 36.6% · 464 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 −0.11 ±0.16 better than 28% of ATP · raw −0.11
Shot selection −0.07 ±0.22 better than 44% of ATP · raw −0.07
Execution −0.81 ±1.28 better than 32% of ATP · raw −0.92

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 2,532 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Pavel Kotov 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 · 205 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 41.8%±8.2 47.6%
BH through the middle 28% 37.3%±9.1 43.7%
BH down the line 18% 42.6%±10.8 46.4%
FH inside-out 7% 58.2%±13.7 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 6% 40.9%±14.1 42.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 114 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 55% 50.1%±9.0 48.0%
BH through the middle 22% 39.5%±12.0 43.8%
BH down the line 18% 39.7%±12.6 46.5%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 99 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 27% 51.7%±12.0 51.5%
FH crosscourt 22% 48.9%±12.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 51.1%±13.3 47.0%
BH crosscourt 13% 38.9%±14.0 49.1%
BH through the middle 10% 44.5%±14.9 46.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 85 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 56% 40.2%±9.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 22% 41.8%±13.0 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 49.9%±13.3 44.7%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied Pavel Kotov's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 64 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 36% ▼ 66% / 73%
Body 16% 27% ▲ 65% / 63%
T 38% 36% 74% / 75%

238 normal · 22 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 59% 57% 62% / 73%
Body 10% 10% 58% / 63%
T 31% 33% 67% / 72%

188 normal · 42 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
Wide45% 62.6%±6.6 n=117 58% ▲
Body17% 63.0%±9.2 n=44 4% ▼
T38% 62.6%±7.0 n=99 38%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 1.00).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide59% 55.7%±6.4 n=135 55% ▼
Body10% 51.5%±11.4 n=22 0% ▼
T32% 50.9%±8.1 n=73 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.60).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.41 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: +3.6±8.4 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. (180 repeats, 296 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 17 28% −9.1±10.8
1stAd courtT 57 32% +3.5±8.2
1stAd courtWide 67 19% −8.5±6.5
1stDeuce courtBody 22 33% −4.0±10.7
1stDeuce courtT 62 21% −3.9±7.0
1stDeuce courtWide 67 19% −8.5±6.5
2ndAd courtBody 34 42% −7.5±10.1
2ndAd courtT 18 41% −8.1±11.7
2ndAd courtWide 24 51% +2.6±11.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 39 47% −1.6±9.9
2ndDeuce courtT 34 42% −7.7±10.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 17 48% −0.4±12.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 8.9% · won 68% · +2.4±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.4% · won 47% · +5.3±11.7 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 10.0% · won 46% · +3.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 7.8% · won 45% · +3.2±10.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 5.4% · won 43% · +1.3±11.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 42% · +0.4±11.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 48% · +3.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +8.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (1/6)
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 47% · +2.3±10.6 vs own baseline · +0.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (3/8), Jannik Sinner (11/21)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 2.4% · won 46% · +1.3±10.8 vs own baseline · +1.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (6/16), Botic Van De Zandschulp (5/8)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 45% · +0.8±13.0 vs own baseline · −2.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Botic Van De Zandschulp (4/8)
  5. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 38% · −6.2±12.4 vs own baseline · −19.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (3/11)
  6. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.5% · won 38% · −6.5±11.9 vs own baseline · −17.6 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

BH to their backhand · rally+0.8182
FH to their forehand · rally−0.9162
FH to their backhand · rally−1.3147
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.5135

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−1.9171
BH to their backhand · rally−1.0178
FH to their forehand · rally+0.7135

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Adrian Andreev, Alex Molcan, Rafael Nadal, Hugo Gaston, Daniel Evans

Charted matches