ATP · Right-handed · 2 charted matches · 2021–2025
Carlos Taberner
Shot expected value
The share of points Carlos Taberner 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 middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 78 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH down the line | 32% | 42.9%±12.1 | 51.5% |
| FH crosscourt | 26% | 53.9%±13.0 | 52.7% |
| BH crosscourt | 19% | 56.6%±13.8 | 49.1% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 67 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 46% | 42.2%±11.4 | 47.6% |
| BH through the middle | 31% | 50.6%±12.8 | 43.7% |
| FH inside-out | 15% | 51.2%±15.0 | 51.8% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 62 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH down the line | 31% | 49.7%±13.2 | 52.0% |
| BH crosscourt | 23% | 49.7%±14.1 | 49.6% |
| FH crosscourt | 21% | 53.2%±14.3 | 52.7% |
| BH through the middle | 16% | 37.9%±14.6 | 46.8% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 62 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 47% | 58.4%±11.6 | 48.0% |
| BH through the middle | 24% | 45.0%±13.8 | 43.8% |
Serve under pressure
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 27% | 75% ▲ | 77% / 73% |
| Body | 17% | 0% ▼ | 62% / 63% |
| T | 56% | 25% ▼ | 73% / 75% |
119 normal · 4 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 46% | 42% | 76% / 73% |
| Body | 14% | 17% | 61% / 63% |
| T | 39% | 42% | 71% / 72% |
104 normal · 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 28% | 64.0%±9.8 n=35 |
| Body | 16% | 61.7%±11.3 n=20 |
| T | 55% | 62.1%±8.1 n=68 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.92).
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won |
|---|---|---|
| Wide | 46% | 68.4%±8.4 n=53 |
| Body | 15% | 55.5%±11.9 n=17 |
| T | 40% | 66.2%±8.9 n=46 |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.05).
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 | 2 | 38% | +0.8±14.1 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 40 | 25% | −3.2±8.5 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 22 | 23% | −3.8±9.7 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 4 | 35% | −1.4±13.5 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 39 | 20% | −5.5±7.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 34 | 24% | −3.5±8.7 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 8 | 57% | +8.0±13.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 25 | 58% | +8.5±11.0 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 7 | 53% | +4.4±13.5 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 20 | 45% | −3.6±11.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 11 | 53% | +3.7±12.8 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 10 | 51% | +3.0±13.0 |
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Carlos Taberner 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 2.3% · won 52% · +0.7±13.1 vs own baseline · −1.3 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jesper De Jong (7/12)