RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 95 charted matches · 2002–2025

Richard Gasquet

Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.0% ±2.3 raw 61.8% · tour 63.4% · 7,663 points
Return points won 37.3% ±2.3 raw 33.3% · tour 36.6% · 7,403 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 +0.17 ±0.05 better than 91% of ATP · raw +0.17
Shot selection −0.47 ±0.11 better than 12% of ATP · raw −0.48
Execution +0.78 ±0.25 better than 91% of ATP · raw +0.64
Tactical adaptability +0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 92 matches
Adaptation speed +0.01 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.19 ±0.40 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 4,755 shots · better than 89% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.45 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 68% 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 38,819 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Richard Gasquet 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 · 2,598 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 49% 48.8%±2.3 47.6%
BH through the middle 15% 43.9%±4.0 43.7%
BH slice crosscourt 14% 40.9%±4.2 42.5%
BH down the line 11% 49.4%±4.7 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 26.8%±5.7 35.1%
FH inside-out 2% 45.7%±9.6 51.8%
FH inside-in 1% 64.8%±12.4 54.7%
BH drop shot down the line 1% 58.4%±13.7 47.2%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,782 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 42.4%±3.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 24% 41.9%±3.8 41.5%
FH down the line 21% 43.4%±4.2 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 9% 32.4%±5.8 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 29.4%±8.8 30.9%
FH slice down the line 2% 37.1%±10.5 25.6%
FH lob through the middle 1% 25.3%±12.3 23.0%
FH down the line + approach 1% 63.2%±13.8 69.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,732 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 19% 47.3%±4.4 49.1%
FH crosscourt 19% 49.3%±4.4 52.7%
FH through the middle 18% 43.0%±4.4 47.0%
FH down the line 17% 50.4%±4.6 51.5%
BH through the middle 13% 50.8%±5.3 46.8%
BH down the line 5% 51.1%±8.0 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 68.1%±10.5 70.5%
BH slice crosscourt 1% 36.4%±11.8 47.0%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,587 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 50.2%±3.1 48.0%
BH slice crosscourt 18% 38.0%±4.5 42.1%
BH through the middle 15% 41.0%±5.1 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 43.0%±5.8 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 7% 31.8%±6.7 35.1%
FH inside-out 1% 58.4%±12.5 52.6%
FH inside-in 1% 56.7%±13.8 54.3%
BH slice down the line 1% 30.8%±13.2 35.8%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Richard Gasquet's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 683 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 49% 68% / 73%
Body 5% 10% 62% / 63%
T 45% 41% 75% / 75%

3,837 normal · 153 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 49% 71% / 73%
Body 5% 4% 56% / 63%
T 43% 47% 69% / 72%

3,112 normal · 530 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
Wide50% 61.7%±1.8 n=1,986 42% ▼
Body5% 61.7%±5.1 n=217 0% ▼
T45% 63.5%±1.9 n=1,787 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.47).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 59.4%±1.8 n=1,890 44% ▼
Body5% 53.4%±5.6 n=181 0% ▼
T43% 64.0%±2.0 n=1,571 56% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.027): serve T more. Gap 2.4 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.51 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: +2.4±2.1 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. (3,452 repeats, 3,992 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 179 37% −0.1±5.5
1stAd courtT 811 29% +1.4±2.6
1stAd courtWide 1,166 22% −5.1±2.0
1stDeuce courtBody 264 30% −6.4±4.4
1stDeuce courtT 1,143 22% −3.5±2.0
1stDeuce courtWide 1,079 26% −0.9±2.2
2ndAd courtBody 384 52% +2.3±4.0
2ndAd courtT 195 49% ±0.0±5.5
2ndAd courtWide 755 45% −3.5±2.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 499 47% −2.2±3.6
2ndDeuce courtT 614 49% −0.6±3.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 259 45% −3.3±4.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 62% · −2.8±5.8 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 58% · −6.3±6.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → BH down the line used 2.9% · won 59% · −5.4±5.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 58% · −6.6±5.9 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 58% · −6.3±4.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.4% · won 49% · +12.6±6.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.0% · won 45% · +8.9±5.0 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.0% · won 44% · +7.6±5.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.6% · won 42% · +5.9±6.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 2.1% · won 41% · +4.7±6.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.5% · won 51% · +6.1±3.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 50% · +4.8±4.2 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 51% · +5.8±5.5 vs own baseline
  4. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 51% · +5.6±5.6 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 50% · +4.9±4.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.2% · won 65% · +16.8±9.8 vs own baseline · +19.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 60% · +11.8±8.1 vs own baseline · +11.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (4/6), Roger Federer (8/12)
  3. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH down the line used 0.2% · won 59% · +11.7±9.4 vs own baseline · +14.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (2/6), Roger Federer (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 56% · +8.7±8.5 vs own baseline · +7.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Andy Murray (3/6), Roger Federer (15/29)
  5. FH down the line → FH inside-out → BH crosscourt used 0.1% · won 62% · +14.6±11.5 vs own baseline · +34.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 58% · +9.9±9.6 vs own baseline · +4.3 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 slice to the middle · rally+2.7274
BH to their backhand · rally+2.62,950
FH to their backhand · return+2.6473
BH slice to the middle · return+2.4714
BH slice to their forehand · return+2.3128

Most exposed to

FH volley to their forehand · rally−6.4164
FH to their forehand · return−4.8583
FH to their backhand · return−2.6500
FH to the middle · return−2.11,244
Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.11,932

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.48, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.19, Jack Draper +2.02, Casper Ruud +1.99, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.99

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.87, Fabian Marozsan +1.83, Pedro Martinez +1.72, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.70, Alexander Shevchenko +1.68

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Stefanos Tsitsipas, Alex De Minaur, Andy Murray, Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce50%
Chipped returns26%
T serves · ad43%
Avg rally length4.2
Wide serves · ad52%
Drop shots / shot1.8%
FH down the line31%
BH down the line20%
1st serve in61%
T serves · deuce45%
Points at net11%
Serve & volley6%
Backhand slice18%
Through the middle23%
Deep returns24%
Point-ending shots20.4%
Unforced errors / shot7.7%
Forehand share48%
Run-around forehands6%

Plays most like

  1. Andy Murray 2005–2024 plan v
  2. Nishesh Basavareddy 2024–2025 plan v
  3. David Nalbandian 2002–2012 plan v
  4. Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
  5. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
  6. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  7. Daniil Medvedev 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Marcos Baghdatis 2004–2019 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002
  2. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  3. Ivan Lendl 1979–1994

Charted matches