RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 23 charted matches · 2021–2026

Alejandro Tabilo

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.8% ±2.7 raw 63.5% · tour 63.4% · 1,854 points
Return points won 37.1% ±2.8 raw 35.1% · tour 36.6% · 1,745 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 −0.10 ±0.09 better than 30% of ATP · raw −0.10
Shot selection −0.14 ±0.20 better than 34% of ATP · raw −0.14
Execution +0.14 ±0.46 better than 74% of ATP · raw +0.21
Tactical adaptability −0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.85 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 27% 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 9,239 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Alejandro Tabilo 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 · 558 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 37% 45.3%±5.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 34% 45.9%±5.6 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 44.1%±9.1 46.4%
FH inside-in 4% 53.2%±12.2 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 3% 27.1%±12.0 35.1%
FH through the middle 3% 45.8%±13.9 45.2%
FH inside-out 3% 58.2%±13.7 51.8%
BH slice down the line 2% 34.6%±13.6 37.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 456 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 52.6%±7.0 52.7%
FH down the line 20% 60.4%±7.6 51.5%
BH through the middle 19% 40.3%±7.9 46.8%
FH through the middle 15% 44.8%±8.7 47.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 57.9%±9.9 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 46.8%±12.7 48.3%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 49.6%±14.5 49.4%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 421 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 46% 36.3%±5.4 46.6%
FH through the middle 19% 42.7%±8.2 41.5%
FH down the line 18% 46.3%±8.4 44.7%
FH slice crosscourt 7% 35.6%±11.0 30.9%
FH slice through the middle 6% 20.2%±10.0 24.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 341 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 51.9%±6.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 28% 46.4%±7.6 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 43.4%±10.9 46.5%
FH inside-in 4% 49.6%±14.5 54.3%
BH drop shot down the line 3% 37.3%±14.3 47.8%
FH inside-out 3% 51.8%±15.0 52.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Alejandro Tabilo's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 166 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 46% 74% / 73%
Body 15% 6% ▼ 64% / 63%
T 37% 49% ▲ 72% / 75%

931 normal · 35 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 49% 51% 69% / 73%
Body 10% 9% 62% / 63%
T 41% 40% 76% / 72%

747 normal · 131 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
Wide48% 64.3%±3.5 n=468 49%
Body14% 60.8%±6.2 n=138 1% ▼
T37% 64.7%±4.0 n=360 50% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.57).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 62.4%±3.7 n=434 46% ▼
Body10% 61.0%±7.4 n=89 0% ▼
T40% 65.4%±4.0 n=355 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.47).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.52 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: −3.1±3.9 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. (810 repeats, 988 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 78 37% +0.1±7.6
1stAd courtT 229 25% −3.2±4.4
1stAd courtWide 206 22% −5.1±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 74 36% −1.1±7.7
1stDeuce courtT 184 25% −0.5±4.8
1stDeuce courtWide 314 28% +0.5±4.0
2ndAd courtBody 106 48% −1.7±7.0
2ndAd courtT 122 54% +4.5±6.7
2ndAd courtWide 84 51% +3.0±7.7
2ndDeuce courtBody 124 45% −4.4±6.6
2ndDeuce courtT 50 55% +5.2±9.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 169 47% −1.1±5.8

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.1% · won 64% · −4.4±10.0 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 62% · −6.1±10.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 63% · −5.2±8.5 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.7% · won 62% · −5.9±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 60% · −8.0±9.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.4% · won 49% · +8.8±8.8 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.8% · won 45% · +4.9±8.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 47% · +7.3±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, short used 2.3% · won 47% · +7.2±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 5.9% · won 44% · +4.3±8.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle used 1.6% · won 56% · +10.2±11.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.4% · won 51% · +5.0±7.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 51% · +6.0±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 50% · +4.1±9.1 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 50% · +4.8±10.5 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.7% · won 60% · +12.3±10.9 vs own baseline · +16.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 59% · +11.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +23.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Casper Ruud (7/9)
  3. FH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 57% · +9.7±12.9 vs own baseline · +17.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 55% · +7.2±13.0 vs own baseline · +17.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +5.1±11.3 vs own baseline · +6.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → BH down the line → BH through the middle used 0.7% · won 53% · +5.1±11.3 vs own baseline · +13.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (4/7)

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

BH to their forehand · serve +1+3.9143
BH to their forehand · rally+2.1517
FH to their backhand · return +1+2.0158
BH to the middle · return+1.9434
BH to their forehand · return+1.7182

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · rally−4.0387
BH to their forehand · return +1−3.9121
FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.2294
FH to their backhand · return +1−2.4180
BH to the middle · return−2.2369

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.18, Jack Draper +1.83, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.39, Yoshihito Nishioka +1.32, Pedro Martinez +1.26

Favourable matchups

Pedro Martinez +1.38, Fabian Marozsan +1.29, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.27, Alexander Shevchenko +1.24, Cameron Norrie +1.21

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juncheng Shang, Pedro Martinez, Learner Tien, Miomir Kecmanovic, Nishesh Basavareddy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot3.5%
Through the middle29%
1st serve in65%
Deep returns34%
Wide serves · deuce48%
Forehand share55%
Avg rally length4.1
T serves · ad40%
Chipped returns17%
Unforced errors / shot9.8%
Point-ending shots23.4%
Wide serves · ad49%
Run-around forehands17%
Serve & volley4%
Points at net10%
FH down the line27%
BH down the line15%
Backhand slice8%
T serves · deuce37%

Plays most like

  1. Luca Nardi 2022–2025 plan v
  2. Pablo Carreno Busta 2015–2026 plan v
  3. Nuno Borges 2021–2026 plan v
  4. Carlos Alcaraz 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  6. Alexandre Muller 2023–2025 plan v
  7. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v
  8. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005
  2. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  3. Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014

Charted matches