Game plan
Juan Ignacio Londero v Camilo Ugo Carabelli
Every number combines what Juan Ignacio Londero 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
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 At least one of them is no longer active or has too little charted in the last three seasons, so both are compared on their careers.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 Juan Ignacio Londero'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
| Career | Juan | Camilo |
|---|---|---|
| Direction choice | +0.01 ±0.07 better than 60% | −0.26 ±0.08 better than 7% |
| Shot selection | +0.41 ±0.17 better than 87% | −0.62 ±0.47 better than 8% |
| Execution | −1.08 ±1.01 better than 23% | −0.37 ±0.45 better than 50% |
| Points left on the table | 2.58 ±0.18 lower than 51% | 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.
Juan Ignacio Londero serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Juan wins | v Camilo | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 41% | 69% | 70% | 65.2%±10.1 | 41% |
| Body | 15% | 62% | 67% | 65.5%±13.7 | 2% ▼ |
| T | 44% | 72% | 74% | 71.7%±9.2 | 57% ▲ |
Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.5±1.0 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +3.6 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Juan wins | v Camilo | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 51% | 68% | 67% | 61.9%±10.2 | 45% ▼ |
| Body | 7% | 62% | 58% | 56.8%±17.0 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 42% | 70% | 71% | 69.3%±10.5 | 55% ▲ |
Optimal v Camilo Ugo Carabelli: +0.2±0.9 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving T every time would read +4.7 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Camilo Ugo Carabelli serving
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Now | Camilo wins | v Juan | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 31% | 75% | 69% | 71.0%±10.0 | 44% ▲ |
| Body | 28% | 62% | 70% | 68.4%±11.5 | 15% ▼ |
| T | 41% | 68% | 75% | 68.3%±9.7 | 41% |
Optimal v Juan Ignacio Londero: +0.3±1.1 per 100 first serves (faults included) over the current mix, inside the 90% margin. Serving wide every time would read +1.9 per 100 first serves in before the returner adjusts.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Now | Camilo wins | v Juan | Matchup | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 33% | 68% | 70% | 64.9%±10.5 | 34% |
| Body | 14% | 59% | 66% | 62.3%±14.2 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 52% | 67% | 70% | 65.2%±10.6 | 65% ▲ |
Optimal v Juan Ignacio Londero: +0.2±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.
Juan Ignacio Londero returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camilo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 51% | +4.3 | −1.5 | −0.3 | +2.5±3.0 |
| FH down the line | 35% | +1.7 | −2.0 | +0.3 | ±0.0±4.5 |
| FH crosscourt | 9% | +5.5 | −2.4 | +2.2 | +5.3±3.9 |
| FH slice through the middle | 5% | −4.2 | −0.5 | −0.4 | −5.0±1.7 |
Lean FH through the middle: +1.0±2.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (117 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camilo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 43% | +6.4 | −2.8 | −1.0 | +2.6±2.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 21% | +8.8 | −1.6 | −0.9 | +6.2±3.5 |
| BH down the line | 19% | +4.2 | +0.1 | −1.4 | +2.9±4.5 |
| BH slice through the middle | 11% | −4.2 | −0.4 | −1.3 | −5.9±2.1 |
| BH slice crosscourt | 6% | +0.5 | −1.3 | −0.6 | −1.3±2.3 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.9±3.2 per 100 returns v the current mix (170 returns charted)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Camilo | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 34% | +1.0 | +0.7 | −0.9 | +0.9±3.3 |
| BH through the middle | 31% | −2.9 | +0.1 | +0.6 | −2.1±2.6 |
| FH through the middle | 15% | −2.9 | +1.7 | −0.5 | −1.7±2.3 |
| BH down the line | 14% | −0.2 | +2.4 | −0.7 | +1.5±4.5 |
| FH inside-out | 6% | +1.0 | +0.7 | +0.5 | +2.2±3.2 |
Lean BH down the line: +1.8±4.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (113 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
Camilo Ugo Carabelli returning
1st serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Juan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 39% | +4.3 | ±0.0 | +0.1 | +4.4±3.1 |
| FH slice through the middle | 25% | −4.2 | −1.2 | −0.9 | −6.3±2.0 |
| FH down the line | 15% | +1.7 | −2.2 | −0.5 | −1.1±4.2 |
| FH crosscourt | 9% | +5.5 | +0.1 | +1.4 | +7.1±4.0 |
| FH slice down the line | 8% | −4.3 | −1.2 | ±0.0 | −5.4±1.7 |
Lean FH through the middle: +4.3±2.1 per 100 returns v the current mix (137 returns charted)
1st serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Juan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH through the middle | 42% | +6.4 | +1.5 | +1.3 | +9.2±2.8 |
| BH crosscourt | 27% | +8.8 | +0.5 | ±0.0 | +9.3±3.6 |
| BH down the line | 21% | +4.2 | −0.4 | −3.1 | +0.7±4.2 |
| BH slice down the line | 3% | −8.4 | +0.2 | ±0.0 | −8.2±1.6 |
| BH slice through the middle | 3% | −4.2 | +0.4 | +0.1 | −3.7±1.9 |
Lean BH crosscourt: +3.2±3.0 per 100 returns v the current mix (172 returns charted)
2nd serve to the forehand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Juan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH through the middle | 65% | −3.5 | −0.6 | −1.2 | −5.3±2.8 |
| FH down the line | 19% | −1.8 | +0.2 | +0.8 | −0.8±3.6 |
| FH crosscourt | 16% | −0.2 | +0.9 | −0.6 | +0.1±3.5 |
Lean FH through the middle: −1.7±1.3 per 100 returns v the current mix (43 returns charted, inside the 90% margin)
2nd serve to the backhand
| Return | Now | Tour | Own | v Juan | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 33% | +1.0 | ±0.0 | ±0.0 | +1.0±3.3 |
| BH through the middle | 22% | −2.9 | −2.0 | −0.8 | −5.7±2.5 |
| FH through the middle | 19% | −2.9 | +0.2 | −1.2 | −3.8±2.3 |
| FH inside-out | 18% | +1.0 | +1.0 | +0.8 | +2.8±3.2 |
| BH down the line | 7% | −0.2 | −3.6 | +4.3 | +0.4±4.1 |
Lean FH inside-out: +3.9±2.9 per 100 returns v the current mix (94 returns charted)
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 on grass. Each player's grass record is shrunk toward their all-surface one, so a thin sample on it moves the numbers only a little.
Juan Ignacio Londero
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +3.0±4.1 | +1.0 | +2.0 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | −0.7±3.5 | +0.3 | −1.1 |
| FH to their forehand · rally | −0.8±3.1 | +1.2 | −1.9 |
| BH to the middle · return | −1.1±2.5 | −1.4 | +0.3 |
| FH to the middle · rally | −1.2±2.5 | −1.5 | +0.3 |
| FH to the middle · return | −1.4±2.7 | −0.4 | −1.0 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH to the middle · rally | −4.7±2.3 | −3.8 | −1.0 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −3.9±4.1 | −4.3 | +0.4 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | −2.9±2.7 | −0.8 | −2.1 |
| BH to their forehand · rally | −2.7±4.5 | +0.2 | −2.9 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | −2.2±2.4 | −1.7 | −0.5 |
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
Favour
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to their forehand · rally | +5.6±3.3 | +2.4 | +3.2 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +2.7±3.1 | +0.9 | +1.8 |
| BH to the middle · return | +2.5±2.5 | +1.8 | +0.8 |
| FH to their backhand · serve +1 | +1.9±3.6 | −0.1 | +2.0 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +1.4±3.4 | +1.2 | +0.2 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +1.0±2.4 | +2.2 | −1.1 |
Avoid
| Shot | Edge | Own | Theirs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH to the middle · return | −0.9±2.7 | −0.4 | −0.5 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | −0.9±3.6 | −1.6 | +0.7 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | ±0.0±2.4 | +1.3 | −1.2 |
| FH to their forehand · serve +1 | +0.6±4.3 | −0.8 | +1.4 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +0.6±2.3 | +1.4 | −0.8 |
Against Camilo Ugo Carabelli-like opponents
| Juan Ignacio Londero v | Matches | Serve pts won | Return pts won |
|---|---|---|---|
| All charted opponents | – | 59.6% | 38.9% |
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, Guillermo Canas. When two players have rarely met, their records against these lookalikes fill the gap.