RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 77 charted matches · 2016–2026

Tommy Paul

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

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.0% ±2.3 raw 63.2% · tour 63.4% · 6,456 points
Return points won 40.0% ±2.5 raw 37.4% · tour 36.6% · 6,479 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 +0.09 ±0.06 better than 80% of ATP · raw +0.09
Shot selection +0.11 ±0.11 better than 67% of ATP · raw +0.11
Execution +0.22 ±0.32 better than 76% of ATP · raw +0.19
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 77 matches
Adaptation speed +0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution +0.11 ±0.46 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 4,293 shots · better than 84% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.33 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 81% 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 33,659 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Tommy Paul 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 · 2,297 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 43% 47.4%±2.6 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 42.2%±3.8 43.7%
BH down the line 10% 49.0%±5.1 46.4%
FH inside-out 8% 46.7%±5.6 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 43.7%±5.8 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.1%±7.5 35.1%
FH inside-in 3% 51.1%±8.9 54.7%
BH slice down the line 2% 36.1%±10.0 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,512 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 28% 50.5%±3.9 52.7%
FH down the line 24% 48.5%±4.2 51.5%
FH through the middle 14% 50.8%±5.3 47.0%
BH through the middle 11% 44.5%±6.0 46.8%
BH crosscourt 10% 56.5%±6.2 49.1%
BH down the line 4% 52.9%±9.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 72.3%±9.4 70.5%
BH slice through the middle 2% 45.6%±12.1 44.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 1,473 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 44.7%±3.3 46.6%
FH down the line 27% 48.3%±4.0 44.7%
FH through the middle 16% 44.2%±5.1 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 7% 24.7%±6.5 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 27.5%±8.4 30.9%
FH slice down the line 3% 29.2%±9.5 25.6%
FH down the line + approach 1% 69.3%±13.2 69.3%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 1,447 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 49.6%±3.1 48.0%
BH through the middle 17% 48.0%±5.1 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 47.5%±6.5 42.1%
BH down the line 10% 53.3%±6.5 46.5%
FH inside-out 6% 53.0%±8.2 52.6%
BH slice through the middle 5% 34.8%±8.2 35.1%
BH slice down the line 3% 27.4%±9.6 35.8%
FH inside-in 2% 55.0%±11.9 54.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Tommy Paul's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 557 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 44% 72% / 73%
Body 14% 12% 67% / 63%
T 40% 44% 77% / 75%

3,226 normal · 126 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 48% 45% 66% / 73%
Body 15% 14% 64% / 63%
T 37% 42% 70% / 72%

2,663 normal · 431 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
Wide46% 64.4%±2.0 n=1,542 46%
Body14% 62.6%±3.5 n=475 1% ▼
T40% 65.6%±2.1 n=1,335 53% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.7 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide48% 60.2%±2.1 n=1,473 48%
Body14% 60.2%±3.7 n=446 1% ▼
T38% 63.9%±2.3 n=1,175 51% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.10).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.65 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: +0.8±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. (2,240 repeats, 4,052 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 223 37% −0.2±5.0
1stAd courtT 779 35% +6.5±2.8
1stAd courtWide 927 27% −0.7±2.3
1stDeuce courtBody 203 39% +2.3±5.3
1stDeuce courtT 863 27% +1.5±2.4
1stDeuce courtWide 1,062 28% +1.2±2.2
2ndAd courtBody 452 50% +0.8±3.7
2ndAd courtT 195 53% +4.0±5.5
2ndAd courtWide 513 53% +4.4±3.5
2ndDeuce courtBody 528 46% −3.4±3.5
2ndDeuce courtT 435 55% +4.9±3.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 294 44% −4.1±4.5

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 66% · −0.1±6.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 61% · −4.6±6.5 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 61% · −4.8±5.6 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 59% · −7.1±6.0 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 58% · −8.4±6.6 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.3% · won 55% · +14.5±6.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.1% · won 49% · +8.0±5.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.8% · won 49% · +8.5±6.2 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.2% · won 49% · +8.3±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.9% · won 40% · −0.6±6.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 1.2% · won 58% · +9.4±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.0% · won 53% · +4.6±4.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 54% · +5.4±7.6 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.7% · won 53% · +4.5±6.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 2.0% · won 53% · +4.0±6.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 60% · +10.5±7.6 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Alex De Minaur (4/8), Hubert Hurkacz (6/11)
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 57% · +8.1±6.9 vs own baseline · +6.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Sebastian Korda (4/8), Jannik Sinner (9/17)
  3. FH crosscourt → FH slice through the middle → FH down the line used 0.1% · won 67% · +17.4±11.0 vs own baseline · +21.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line + approach used 0.2% · won 64% · +14.8±10.9 vs own baseline · +2.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line + approach used 0.1% · won 65% · +15.2±11.5 vs own baseline · +9.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line + approach → BH slice through the middle → FH volley crosscourt used 0.1% · won 67% · +17.4±12.1 vs own baseline · +8.1 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 their backhand · rally+3.9128
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+2.3496
BH to the middle · return+2.31,170
FH slice to their backhand · return+2.2142
FH to the middle · return+2.2991

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return−2.11,032
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.7513
FH volley to their forehand · rally−1.6121
BH slice to the middle · return−1.5159
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.21,555

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.70, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.63, Casper Ruud +1.37, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.37, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.33

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.57, Fabian Marozsan +1.52, Pedro Martinez +1.41, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.38, Alexander Shevchenko +1.32

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Miomir Kecmanovic, Casper Ruud, Zhizhen Zhang, Bernard Tomic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Deep returns33%
FH down the line33%
Run-around forehands23%
Forehand share55%
Wide serves · deuce46%
Avg rally length4.2
1st serve in62%
Chipped returns17%
Unforced errors / shot9.9%
Points at net11%
Point-ending shots23.2%
T serves · ad38%
Serve & volley5%
Wide serves · ad48%
Backhand slice16%
Drop shots / shot0.8%
T serves · deuce40%
BH down the line15%
Through the middle21%

Plays most like

  1. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
  2. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  3. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Karen Khachanov 2015–2026 plan v
  5. Magnus Norman 2000–2001 plan v
  6. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  7. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  8. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  3. Mario Ancic 2002–2008

Charted matches