ATP · Right-handed · 9 charted matches · 2022–2026
Camilo Ugo Carabelli
Archetype: Grinder · Ad-court T server
Against an average opponent
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
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 4,874 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points Camilo Ugo Carabelli 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 · 556 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 32% | 46.0%±5.8 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 16% | 46.6%±7.9 | 43.7% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 13% | 41.8%±8.5 | 42.5% |
| FH inside-out | 12% | 54.4%±8.8 | 51.8% |
| BH slice through the middle | 9% | 47.3%±9.7 | 35.1% |
| BH down the line | 6% | 48.6%±11.4 | 46.4% |
| FH inside-in | 5% | 61.1%±11.5 | 54.7% |
| FH through the middle | 5% | 49.0%±12.0 | 45.2% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 295 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 35% | 48.0%±7.4 | 48.0% |
| BH slice through the middle | 14% | 43.4%±10.5 | 35.1% |
| BH down the line | 12% | 36.2%±10.6 | 46.5% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 12% | 40.0%±10.8 | 42.1% |
| BH through the middle | 12% | 54.1%±11.1 | 43.8% |
| FH inside-out | 9% | 55.5%±12.1 | 52.6% |
| FH inside-in | 5% | 65.3%±13.2 | 54.3% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 210 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 33% | 56.5%±8.6 | 46.6% |
| FH through the middle | 29% | 41.1%±9.0 | 41.5% |
| FH down the line | 22% | 55.1%±10.0 | 44.7% |
| FH slice through the middle | 9% | 28.7%±12.1 | 24.5% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 189 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 28% | 51.4%±9.6 | 52.7% |
| FH down the line | 27% | 65.2%±9.3 | 51.5% |
| FH through the middle | 19% | 49.8%±11.1 | 47.0% |
| BH crosscourt | 9% | 45.5%±13.5 | 49.1% |
| BH through the middle | 7% | 54.0%±14.1 | 46.8% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index −2 How much less varied Camilo Ugo Carabelli's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 92 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 31% | 25% | 75% / 73% |
| Body | 28% | 29% | 62% / 63% |
| T | 41% | 46% | 68% / 75% |
410 normal · 24 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 31% | 43% ▲ | 68% / 73% |
| Body | 14% | 15% | 59% / 63% |
| T | 54% | 43% ▼ | 67% / 72% |
341 normal · 68 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 serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 31% | 62.4%±6.2 n=133 | 44% ▲ |
| Body | 28% | 58.9%±6.5 n=123 | 15% ▼ |
| T | 41% | 57.0%±5.6 n=178 | 41% |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.47).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 33% | 55.7%±6.3 n=136 | 46% ▲ |
| Body | 14% | 53.2%±8.7 n=59 | 1% ▼ |
| T | 52% | 56.7%±5.2 n=214 | 53% |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.78).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 0.58 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±6.7 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. (317 repeats, 508 switches.)
Return by serve direction
Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.
| Serve | Court | Direction | Points | Won | vs tour | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ad court | Body | 20 | 42% | +5.2±11.5 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 76 | 29% | +0.7±7.2 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 117 | 33% | +5.5±6.4 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 34 | 33% | −3.9±9.7 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 116 | 26% | +0.6±5.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 105 | 30% | +3.3±6.5 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 41 | 53% | +3.9±9.7 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 33 | 49% | −0.4±10.4 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 68 | 48% | +0.1±8.3 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 71 | 60% | +11.1±8.0 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 56 | 50% | +0.2±8.9 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 19 | 54% | +5.8±11.7 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than Camilo Ugo Carabelli's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 60% · −2.9±11.1 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.4% · won 60% · −3.2±11.5 vs own baseline
- T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 4.2% · won 56% · −6.9±11.0 vs own baseline
- Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 7.6% · won 57% · −5.9±9.2 vs own baseline
Return
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 10.5% · won 45% · −4.4±11.1 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.3% · won 55% · +4.7±10.6 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 54% · +3.6±11.4 vs own baseline
- BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 53% · +2.3±10.7 vs own baseline
- FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.2% · won 52% · +1.8±11.7 vs own baseline
- BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 50% · −0.3±11.0 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Camilo Ugo Carabelli wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 63% · +12.5±12.0 vs own baseline · +24.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (12/15)
- FH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.8% · won 58% · +7.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +20.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (6/9)
- FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 58% · +8.3±12.5 vs own baseline · +17.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (5/7)
- BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.6% · won 59% · +8.7±12.8 vs own baseline · +22.5 vs tour on the same sequence
- FH inside-out → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.3±12.7 vs own baseline · +21.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (5/7)
- FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 53% · +2.7±11.2 vs own baseline · +8.4 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 forehand · rally | +2.4 | 271 |
| FH to the middle · rally | +2.2 | 190 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.4 | 160 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +1.3 | 318 |
| FH to their backhand · rally | +0.9 | 338 |
Most exposed to
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | −0.9 | 156 |
| BH to the middle · return | −0.3 | 165 |
| BH to their backhand · rally | +0.5 | 422 |
| BH to their backhand · return | +0.6 | 154 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +1.0 | 148 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Jesper De Jong, Lorenzo Musetti, Sebastian Baez, Nishesh Basavareddy, Cameron Norrie
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the ATP average, in standard deviations.
| Run-around forehands | 38% | |
| T serves · ad | 52% | |
| Avg rally length | 4.9 | |
| Deep returns | 37% | |
| Backhand slice | 33% | |
| Through the middle | 28% | |
| Drop shots / shot | 1.8% | |
| FH down the line | 30% | |
| Forehand share | 53% | |
| Chipped returns | 11% | |
| Serve & volley | 0% | |
| 1st serve in | 59% | |
| T serves · deuce | 41% | |
| Points at net | 7% | |
| BH down the line | 14% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 6.8% | |
| Point-ending shots | 15.9% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 31% | |
| Wide serves · ad | 33% |
Plays most like
- Botic Van De Zandschulp 2019–2026 plan v
- David Ferrer 2003–2019 plan v
- Miomir Kecmanovic 2019–2026 plan v
- Guillermo Canas 2001–2007 plan v
- Emil Ruusuvuori 2021–2024 plan v
- Juan Martin Del Potro 2007–2022 plan v
- Alex De Minaur 2016–2026 plan v
- Taro Daniel 2014–2024 plan v
Closest from another era
- Guillermo Canas 2001–2007
- Aaron Krickstein 1989–1995
- Andy Roddick 2001–2012
Charted matches
- Camilo Ugo Carabelli v Learner Tien L Brisbane R32 · Hard · 4 Jan 2026
- Tomas Barrios Vera v Camilo Ugo Carabelli W Campinas CH QF · Clay · 18 Oct 2024
- Camilo Ugo Carabelli v Karue Sell W Campinas CH R16 · Clay · 17 Oct 2024
- Jesper De Jong v Camilo Ugo Carabelli W Villa Maria CH F · Clay · 13 Oct 2024
- Taylor Fritz v Camilo Ugo Carabelli L US Open R128 · Hard · 26 Aug 2024
- Alvaro Guillen Meza v Camilo Ugo Carabelli W Sao Leopoldo CH R32 · Clay · 26 Mar 2024
- Carlos Alcaraz v Camilo Ugo Carabelli L Buenos Aires R16 · Clay · 15 Feb 2024
- Jesper De Jong v Camilo Ugo Carabelli W Australian Open Q3 · Hard · 12 Jan 2024
- Aslan Karatsev v Camilo Ugo Carabelli W Roland Garros R128 · Clay · 22 May 2022