RallyIQ

Game plan

Guillermo Canas v Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Every number combines what Guillermo Canas does well with what Camilo Ugo Carabelli allows, each measured against the tour average and shrunk toward it when the sample is thin. Flip perspective

Forecast

Guillermo Canas wins, best of 3 51%90%: 19%–82% · best of 5: 51%
Serve points won 61.4% / 61.3% Guillermo / Camilo · tour 63.4%
Strengths only, no similarity priors 51%serve 61.4% / 61.3%

Each player's serve and return strength is fitted against every opponent they were charted against, so a record built on weak opponents counts for less. At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers. The result is then nudged by Guillermo Canas's record against Camilo Ugo Carabelli's tactical lookalikes and in their charted head-to-heads. A game-by-game Markov chain turns point odds into match odds; the 90% range covers the uncertainty in the two strengths, not the nudges. Charted matches lean toward big events, so treat this as a scouting estimate, not a betting line.

Head to head, per 100 shots

CareerGuillermoCamilo
Direction choice−0.13 ±0.13
better than 23%
−0.26 ±0.08
better than 7%
Shot selection−0.02 ±0.24
better than 50%
−0.62 ±0.47
better than 8%
Execution+0.01 ±0.49
better than 68%
−0.37 ±0.45
better than 50%
Points left on the table2.57 ±0.12
lower than 53%
2.74 ±0.12
lower than 36%

Each player's career against an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for opponent strength, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Points left on the table is the gap to the best-value direction for the same stroke, so lower is better. Percentiles are within each player's own tour. A side is highlighted only when the gap is larger than the margin on the difference.

Serve plan

The share of points the server wins when a first serve lands in that direction (hover a rate for its 90% interval; ± is the 90% margin). "Matchup" combines the server's rate with how this returner handles that serve. "Optimal" is the mix that wins most against this returner once they start reading a habit, at the response measured across the tour, and only within the range servers' habits actually vary. The gain over the current mix is how exploitable that mix is.

Guillermo Canas serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowGuillermo winsv CamiloMatchupOptimal
Wide44%66%70%62.5%±10.644%
Body13%56%67%60.5%±15.00% ▼
T43%77%74%76.9%±9.256% ▲

Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.6±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +8.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowGuillermo winsv CamiloMatchupOptimal
Wide39%69%67%62.8%±11.231% ▼
Body8%67%58%62.3%±17.52% ▼
T54%68%71%66.9%±11.067% ▲

Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.1±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Camilo Ugo Carabelli serving

Deuce court

1st serveNowCamilo winsv GuillermoMatchupOptimal
Wide31%75%76%78.2%±8.744% ▲
Body28%62%64%62.7%±14.015% ▼
T41%68%79%72.4%±10.041%

Optimal v Guillermo Canas: +1.0±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +6.8 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Ad court

1st serveNowCamilo winsv GuillermoMatchupOptimal
Wide33%68%71%66.2%±10.546% ▲
Body14%59%71%67.6%±14.81% ▼
T52%67%73%67.7%±10.553%

Optimal v Guillermo Canas: +0.4±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +0.5 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.

Return plan

Value of each return, in points per 100 returns against an average return of the same serve (direction, court, surface): the tour's result with that return, the returner's own edge with it, and what this server gives up when it comes back to that side. Returns with no charted direction are left out, so values compare with each other rather than with zero. Depth isn't a choice here: missed returns have no depth. Serve quality isn't charted, so a block through the middle partly reflects the serve that forced it.

Guillermo Canas returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CamiloValue
FH through the middle53%+4.3−0.8−0.3+3.2±3.1
FH down the line28%+1.7+1.0+0.3+3.0±4.5
FH crosscourt19%+5.5+1.9+2.2+9.7±4.2

Lean FH crosscourt: +5.3±4.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (102 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CamiloValue
BH through the middle44%+6.4−2.2−1.0+3.2±2.8
BH crosscourt26%+8.8−0.5−0.9+7.3±3.5
BH slice through the middle12%−4.2−1.4−1.3−6.9±2.1
BH down the line9%+4.2±0.0−1.4+2.8±4.0
BH slice crosscourt9%+0.5−1.0−0.6−1.0±2.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +4.7±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (123 returns charted)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv CamiloValue
BH through the middle61%−2.9−2.4+0.6−4.7±2.6
BH crosscourt29%+1.0−0.5−0.9−0.4±3.3
BH down the line10%−0.2+1.7−0.7+0.8±4.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.5±2.8 per 100 returns v the current mix (124 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Camilo Ugo Carabelli returning

1st serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv GuillermoValue
FH through the middle39%+4.3±0.0+1.7+6.0±3.1
FH slice through the middle25%−4.2−1.2±0.0−5.4±1.6
FH down the line15%+1.7−2.2+0.7+0.1±4.3
FH crosscourt9%+5.5+0.1−1.7+3.9±3.7
FH slice down the line8%−4.3−1.2±0.0−5.4±1.7

Lean FH through the middle: +5.2±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (137 returns charted)

1st serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv GuillermoValue
BH through the middle42%+6.4+1.5+1.9+9.8±2.9
BH crosscourt27%+8.8+0.5+0.3+9.6±3.5
BH down the line21%+4.2−0.4−1.0+2.8±4.3
BH slice down the line3%−8.4+0.2−0.1−8.3±2.3
BH slice through the middle3%−4.2+0.4−1.6−5.4±2.0

Lean BH through the middle: +2.9±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted)

2nd serve to the forehand

ReturnNowTourOwnv GuillermoValue
FH through the middle65%−3.5−0.6+0.7−3.4±2.8
FH down the line19%−1.8+0.2−1.2−2.8±3.6
FH crosscourt16%−0.2+0.9−0.5+0.2±3.3

Lean FH through the middle: −0.7±1.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (43 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

2nd serve to the backhand

ReturnNowTourOwnv GuillermoValue
BH crosscourt33%+1.0±0.0+0.4+1.4±3.3
BH through the middle22%−2.9−2.0+0.3−4.5±2.5
FH through the middle19%−2.9+0.2+0.7−1.9±2.3
FH inside-out18%+1.0+1.0−1.2+0.8±3.2
BH down the line7%−0.2−3.6+1.1−2.7±3.3

Lean BH crosscourt: +2.4±2.4 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)

Rally plan

Edge, in points per 100 shots: the hitter's skill with the shot (own) plus how much the receiver usually gives up against it (theirs), both measured against the tour average.

Guillermo Canas

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
FH to their forehand · return +1+2.7±4.4+2.0+0.7
FH to the middle · rally+0.9±2.4+0.6+0.3
FH to their forehand · serve +1+0.8±4.0+2.4−1.6
BH to the middle · rally−0.2±2.1+0.7−1.0
FH to their forehand · rally−0.5±3.0+1.4−1.9
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.3±3.6−0.2−1.1

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to the middle · return−2.1±2.4−2.4+0.3
BH to their backhand · rally−1.8±2.4−1.3−0.5
BH to their backhand · return−1.6±3.2−1.0−0.6
FH to their backhand · rally−1.6±2.7+0.5−2.1
FH to the middle · return−1.4±2.8−0.4−1.0

Camilo Ugo Carabelli

Favour

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their backhand · rally+3.2±2.3+1.3+2.0
FH to their forehand · serve +1+3.1±4.3−0.8+3.9
BH to the middle · return+2.7±2.6+1.8+1.0
FH to their forehand · rally+1.8±3.1+2.4−0.6
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.7±3.7−0.1+1.8
FH to the middle · return+1.7±2.7−0.4+2.1

Avoid

ShotEdgeOwnTheirs
BH to their forehand · rally−2.2±4.5−3.0+0.8
BH to the middle · rally−0.3±2.2+1.4−1.7
FH to their backhand · rally+0.2±2.8+0.9−0.8
BH to their backhand · return +1+0.4±3.6−1.6+2.0
BH to their backhand · return+1.0±3.4+1.2−0.2

Against Camilo Ugo Carabelli-like opponents

Guillermo Canas vMatchesServe pts wonReturn pts won
All charted opponents–60.1%31.6%

Similar by tactical fingerprint: Jesper De Jong, Tomas Martin Etcheverry, Alex De Minaur, Botic Van De Zandschulp, Miomir Kecmanovic, Taro Daniel, Emil Ruusuvuori, Juan Martin Del Potro, David Ferrer. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.