RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 25 charted matches · 2014–2025

Albert Ramos

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.7% ±2.8 raw 58.7% · tour 63.4% · 2,046 points
Return points won 36.9% ±2.9 raw 35.3% · tour 36.6% · 1,986 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 +0.07 ±0.10 better than 76% of ATP · raw +0.07
Shot selection +0.07 ±0.17 better than 61% of ATP · raw +0.06
Execution +0.14 ±0.35 better than 74% of ATP · raw +0.03
Tactical adaptability −0.12 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 25 matches
Adaptation speed −0.22 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.58 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 50% 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 11,140 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Albert Ramos 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 · 835 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 30% 45.4%±5.0 47.6%
BH through the middle 29% 43.8%±5.0 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 41.6%±7.0 46.4%
FH inside-out 7% 58.2%±9.2 51.8%
FH inside-in 6% 49.9%±10.0 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 5% 25.5%±9.3 35.1%
FH through the middle 4% 44.3%±11.3 45.2%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 51.1%±12.1 42.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 622 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 59% 45.4%±4.2 46.6%
FH through the middle 15% 37.2%±7.5 41.5%
FH down the line 15% 46.8%±7.8 44.7%
BH through the middle 5% 34.6%±11.3 43.1%
FH slice through the middle 3% 18.7%±10.5 24.5%
BH inside-out 2% 57.0%±14.9 45.4%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 587 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 54.4%±5.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 21% 41.5%±6.8 43.8%
BH down the line 15% 42.9%±7.8 46.5%
FH inside-in 6% 53.2%±10.8 54.3%
FH inside-out 6% 50.1%±11.3 52.6%
BH slice through the middle 5% 30.8%±10.5 35.1%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 36.3%±11.4 42.1%
FH through the middle 3% 43.0%±12.9 46.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 572 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 31% 55.3%±5.8 52.7%
FH down the line 19% 51.8%±7.2 51.5%
FH through the middle 16% 44.4%±7.8 47.0%
BH through the middle 15% 48.9%±7.9 46.8%
BH down the line 9% 50.9%±9.8 48.3%
BH crosscourt 7% 55.5%±10.5 49.1%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −6 How much less varied Albert Ramos's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 225 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 31% 31% 68% / 73%
Body 10% 7% 60% / 63%
T 60% 62% 61% / 75%

1,009 normal · 55 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 62% 54% 65% / 73%
Body 8% 11% 61% / 63%
T 30% 35% 69% / 72%

810 normal · 170 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
Wide31% 58.4%±4.3 n=325 44% ▲
Body10% 56.9%±7.0 n=104 0% ▼
T60% 58.0%±3.1 n=635 56% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.94).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide60% 59.1%±3.2 n=591 56% ▼
Body8% 58.0%±7.6 n=83 0% ▼
T31% 60.6%±4.4 n=306 44% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.82).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.37 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: +1.0±4.3 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. (892 repeats, 1,102 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 83 42% +4.7±7.6
1stAd courtT 249 27% −1.0±4.4
1stAd courtWide 260 30% +2.8±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 68 29% −8.1±7.5
1stDeuce courtT 243 24% −1.4±4.2
1stDeuce courtWide 373 26% −1.3±3.6
2ndAd courtBody 82 46% −3.1±7.8
2ndAd courtT 159 54% +4.6±6.0
2ndAd courtWide 109 51% +3.1±7.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 86 51% +1.6±7.6
2ndDeuce courtT 70 49% −0.8±8.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 204 45% −3.0±5.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.5% · won 62% · +0.8±9.2 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 61% · +0.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 56% · −4.6±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 5.4% · won 57% · −4.3±7.1 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 53% · −7.6±8.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.1% · won 52% · +13.5±11.1 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 47% · +8.4±9.3 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.5% · won 46% · +7.6±8.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.0% · won 44% · +6.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, short used 3.2% · won 44% · +5.9±9.8 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.6% · won 52% · +4.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 51% · +4.3±6.9 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 7.9% · won 50% · +3.0±5.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 52% · +4.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 1.7% · won 52% · +5.3±9.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. T serve → BH through the middle return, short → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 56% · +7.6±11.3 vs own baseline · +4.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Carlos Alcaraz (6/7)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 56% · +7.9±11.5 vs own baseline · +14.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 57% · +8.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +10.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 57% · +8.7±12.3 vs own baseline · +16.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. BH through the middle → BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 58% · +9.4±12.9 vs own baseline · +27.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 51% · +2.8±5.8 vs own baseline · +3.0 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 their backhand · return+3.5233
BH to their forehand · rally+2.6519
FH to their backhand · rally+2.11,149
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.9212
Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.3148

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.0319
FH to their backhand · return−2.7186
BH to their forehand · return−2.4256
T 1st serve · deuce court−2.4394
BH to the middle · return−1.9529

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.49, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.13, Jack Draper +2.07, Nishesh Basavareddy +2.03, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.92

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.65, Pedro Martinez +1.51, Arthur Rinderknech +1.46, Cameron Norrie +1.46, Fabian Marozsan +1.44

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Luciano Darderi, Brandon Nakashima, Milos Raonic, Francisco Cerundolo, Rinky Hijikata

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce60%
Wide serves · ad60%
Avg rally length4.8
Forehand share57%
1st serve in64%
Run-around forehands24%
Through the middle26%
BH down the line21%
Deep returns25%
Backhand slice17%
Drop shots / shot1.1%
Chipped returns12%
Serve & volley1%
Unforced errors / shot8.6%
Points at net6%
Point-ending shots18.5%
T serves · ad31%
FH down the line23%
Wide serves · deuce31%

Plays most like

  1. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Yoshihito Nishioka 2015–2025 plan v
  3. Pablo Cuevas 2015–2021 plan v
  4. Rafael Nadal 2003–2024 plan v
  5. Federico Delbonis 2013–2023 plan v
  6. Thomas Muster 1988–2011 plan v
  7. Juncheng Shang 2024–2026 plan v
  8. Daniel Elahi Galan 2020–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Thomas Muster 1988–2011
  2. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009
  3. Gaston Gaudio 2002–2005

Charted matches