RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 6 charted matches · 2019–2024

Pedro Cachin

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.1% ±3.7 raw 62.9% · tour 63.4% · 526 points
Return points won 35.3% ±3.6 raw 35.6% · tour 36.6% · 534 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 +0.12 ±0.11 better than 85% of ATP · raw +0.13
Shot selection −0.12 ±0.18 better than 36% of ATP · raw −0.10
Execution −0.66 ±0.65 better than 38% of ATP · raw −0.27
Points left on the table 2.21 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 91% 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 2,983 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Pedro Cachin 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 · 259 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 58% 51.5%±6.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 15% 48.7%±10.7 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 45.7%±12.0 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 5% 35.4%±13.5 35.1%
FH inside-out 5% 54.3%±14.5 51.8%
BH down the line 4% 47.6%±15.0 46.4%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 148 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 28% 48.1%±10.4 49.1%
FH crosscourt 25% 57.1%±10.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 14% 59.5%±12.6 47.0%
FH down the line 14% 48.2%±13.0 51.5%
BH through the middle 9% 45.2%±14.0 46.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 133 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 59% 56.7%±8.2 48.0%
BH through the middle 12% 57.7%±13.5 43.8%
BH down the line 10% 58.5%±14.1 46.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 120 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 56% 41.8%±8.7 46.9%
BH through the middle 18% 45.4%±12.8 43.0%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 39.9%±14.0 40.9%

Serve under pressure

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 63% ▲ 69% / 73%
Body 8% 13% 59% / 63%
T 49% 25% ▼ 73% / 75%

263 normal · 8 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 37% ▼ 81% / 73%
Body 8% 7% 62% / 63%
T 47% 57% ▲ 71% / 72%

221 normal · 30 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
Wide44% 63.9%±6.5 n=118 57% ▲
Body8% 54.8%±11.2 n=23 0% ▼
T48% 60.1%±6.4 n=130 43% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.25).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide45% 66.4%±6.5 n=112 58% ▲
Body8% 63.4%±11.3 n=19 0% ▼
T48% 64.1%±6.4 n=120 42% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.83).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.52 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: +4.8±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. (228 repeats, 282 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 20 38% +1.2±11.3
1stAd courtT 73 27% −1.4±7.2
1stAd courtWide 71 27% −0.3±7.3
1stDeuce courtBody 17 36% −0.5±11.5
1stDeuce courtT 71 29% +4.2±7.4
1stDeuce courtWide 84 29% +1.9±7.0
2ndAd courtBody 54 56% +6.4±8.9
2ndAd courtT 7 45% −3.9±13.5
2ndAd courtWide 29 42% −6.8±10.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 68 39% −9.5±8.1
2ndDeuce courtT 27 54% +4.5±10.9
2ndDeuce courtWide 13 50% +1.7±12.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 8.2% · won 65% · −5.3±10.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 8.0% · won 64% · +11.5±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 58% · +5.3±11.2 vs own baseline
  3. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 56% · +3.2±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.5% · won 54% · +0.8±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 5.7% · won 53% · −0.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Pedro Cachin 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 1.5% · won 62% · +11.3±11.6 vs own baseline · +20.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Brandon Holt (6/9), Jesper De Jong (5/6)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.3% · won 55% · +4.3±12.2 vs own baseline · +11.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Francesco Maestrelli (4/7)
  3. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 52% · +1.7±9.1 vs own baseline · +4.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Francesco Maestrelli (8/19), Brandon Holt (10/17)
  4. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 51% · +1.1±13.0 vs own baseline · +6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (3/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.0% · won 50% · −0.1±12.9 vs own baseline · +5.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.0% · won 50% · −0.1±12.9 vs own baseline · +1.2 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

FH to their forehand · rally+0.9194
T 1st serve · ad court−1.0120
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.5130
BH to their backhand · rally−1.5303
FH to their backhand · rally−1.8122

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · rally−1.4128
FH to the middle · rally−1.1123
FH to their forehand · rally−0.7154
BH to their backhand · rally±0.0253
FH to their backhand · rally+0.1194

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Raphael Collignon, Jack Draper, Pedro Martinez, Thiago Monteiro

Charted matches