RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 15 charted matches · 2017–2025

Roman Safiullin

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.0% ±3.0 raw 61.4% · tour 63.4% · 1,346 points
Return points won 36.6% ±3.0 raw 32.7% · tour 36.6% · 1,362 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 ±0.07 better than 83% of ATP · raw +0.11
Shot selection +0.42 ±0.20 better than 88% of ATP · raw +0.42
Execution −0.74 ±0.73 better than 35% of ATP · raw −0.78
Tactical adaptability +0.24 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 15 matches
Adaptation speed +0.20 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.11 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 98% 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 6,875 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Roman Safiullin 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 · 417 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 42.5%±5.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 37.8%±7.5 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 35.7%±9.6 46.4%
FH inside-out 7% 49.7%±11.7 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 39.0%±13.4 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 46.8%±14.7 42.5%
FH inside-in 3% 57.8%±14.6 54.7%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 323 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 43.3%±6.6 46.6%
FH through the middle 23% 35.0%±8.1 41.5%
FH down the line 23% 45.1%±8.5 44.7%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 29.9%±12.9 30.9%
FH slice through the middle 3% 22.3%±12.3 24.5%
FH down the line + approach 3% 72.9%±13.4 69.3%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 302 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 34% 48.0%±7.4 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 49.8%±9.1 51.5%
BH through the middle 11% 45.1%±11.1 46.8%
BH crosscourt 11% 36.7%±10.8 49.1%
FH through the middle 11% 40.4%±11.1 47.0%
BH down the line 8% 49.2%±12.4 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 5% 62.1%±13.7 70.5%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 248 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 51% 44.1%±6.8 46.9%
BH through the middle 24% 32.0%±8.6 43.0%
BH down the line 14% 47.0%±11.1 44.2%
BH slice through the middle 4% 33.9%±14.0 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index ±0 How much less varied Roman Safiullin's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 128 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 62% ▲ 70% / 73%
Body 7% 12% 49% / 63%
T 43% 26% ▼ 73% / 75%

668 normal · 34 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 37% ▼ 75% / 73%
Body 15% 15% 63% / 63%
T 36% 48% ▲ 66% / 72%

543 normal · 94 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
Wide51% 63.8%±4.0 n=357 64% ▲
Body7% 45.2%±9.0 n=52 0% ▼
T42% 59.9%±4.5 n=293 36% ▼

Off equilibrium (p < 0.001): serve wide more. Gap 3.0 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 68.1%±4.2 n=299 60% ▲
Body15% 55.8%±7.3 n=96 2% ▼
T38% 59.6%±4.9 n=242 38%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.007): serve wide more. Gap 5.1 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +1.1 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.85 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: −1.8±5.2 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. (533 repeats, 776 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 42 36% −0.7±9.3
1stAd courtT 151 25% −2.9±5.3
1stAd courtWide 211 26% −1.4±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 49 34% −2.5±8.8
1stDeuce courtT 212 23% −2.1±4.4
1stDeuce courtWide 201 27% +0.2±4.8
2ndAd courtBody 102 41% −8.6±7.0
2ndAd courtT 38 50% +0.4±10.0
2ndAd courtWide 107 41% −7.1±6.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 105 48% −1.1±7.1
2ndDeuce courtT 93 48% −1.8±7.4
2ndDeuce courtWide 51 51% +3.1±9.1

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt + approach used 2.1% · won 75% · +8.2±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 67% · +0.5±10.7 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 64% · −3.0±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 62% · −4.7±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 61% · −6.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.3% · won 48% · +10.1±10.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 3.7% · won 49% · +10.8±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.4% · won 47% · +9.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, short used 2.6% · won 47% · +8.7±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.7% · won 43% · +5.0±8.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 3.3% · won 53% · +9.7±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.3% · won 49% · +5.5±9.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 49% · +5.5±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 48% · +4.5±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 47% · +3.8±9.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.9% · won 55% · +9.1±10.8 vs own baseline · +13.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (8/12)
  2. BH down the line → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 50% · +3.9±12.6 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 50% · +3.9±12.6 vs own baseline · +4.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (4/7)
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.9% · won 49% · +3.0±11.0 vs own baseline · +4.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lorenzo Musetti (3/6), Jannik Sinner (6/7)
  5. BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 49% · +2.9±11.4 vs own baseline · +3.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (4/9)
  6. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 48% · +1.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +1.9 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 the middle · return+2.9185
BH to their backhand · serve +1+2.2157
BH to their forehand · rally+2.1222
FH to their backhand · rally+1.9427
FH to the middle · rally+1.7197

Most exposed to

FH to their backhand · rally−3.7385
FH to their forehand · serve +1−1.5186
FH to their backhand · return−1.3128
FH to the middle · rally−1.2180
T 1st serve · deuce court−0.9337

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.73, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.29, Jack Draper +2.14, Roberto Bautista Agut +2.07, Casper Ruud +2.05

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.05, Fabian Marozsan +1.04, Pedro Martinez +1.00, Alexander Shevchenko +0.89, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.80

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

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce51%
Unforced errors / shot12.5%
Deep returns32%
Point-ending shots25.7%
Forehand share55%
Run-around forehands21%
FH down the line31%
Drop shots / shot1.6%
Avg rally length4.0
BH down the line20%
Points at net11%
Chipped returns14%
T serves · ad38%
Through the middle24%
Serve & volley2%
1st serve in60%
Wide serves · ad47%
T serves · deuce42%
Backhand slice9%

Plays most like

  1. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  2. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  3. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  4. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  5. Lloyd Harris 2019–2024 plan v
  6. Arthur Fils 2023–2026 plan v
  7. Tommy Paul 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Marin Cilic 2009–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 1994–2002
  3. Thomas Johansson 1996–2005

Charted matches