ATP · Right-handed · 47 charted matches · 2002–2012
David Nalbandian
Archetype: Blocks returns short · Works the corners
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 23,276 shots.
Shot expected value
The share of points David Nalbandian 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 · 1,601 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 49% | 52.3%±2.9 | 47.6% |
| BH down the line | 15% | 48.0%±5.1 | 46.4% |
| BH through the middle | 14% | 52.5%±5.2 | 43.7% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 8% | 42.6%±6.7 | 42.5% |
| BH slice through the middle | 5% | 33.4%±7.5 | 35.1% |
| FH inside-out | 2% | 51.5%±10.9 | 51.8% |
| BH slice down the line | 2% | 38.1%±11.2 | 37.1% |
| FH inside-in | 1% | 43.0%±12.3 | 54.7% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your forehand side
position worth 44% to the average player · 1,219 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 47% | 50.0%±3.4 | 46.6% |
| FH down the line | 24% | 45.0%±4.6 | 44.7% |
| FH through the middle | 21% | 44.8%±4.9 | 41.5% |
| FH slice through the middle | 2% | 31.7%±11.2 | 24.5% |
| FH down the line + approach | 2% | 58.4%±12.0 | 69.3% |
| FH slice down the line | 1% | 24.7%±11.7 | 25.6% |
| FH slice crosscourt | 1% | 24.1%±12.1 | 30.9% |
Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle
position worth 51% to the average player · 1,131 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH crosscourt | 27% | 54.4%±4.5 | 52.7% |
| FH down the line | 20% | 51.6%±5.3 | 51.5% |
| BH crosscourt | 15% | 53.1%±6.0 | 49.1% |
| FH through the middle | 11% | 53.3%±6.8 | 47.0% |
| BH through the middle | 10% | 44.5%±7.0 | 46.8% |
| BH down the line | 8% | 47.8%±7.9 | 48.3% |
| FH down the line + approach | 3% | 69.6%±10.8 | 70.5% |
| BH crosscourt + approach | 2% | 68.0%±11.8 | 67.7% |
Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side
position worth 46% to the average player · 915 shots
| Option | Used | Win % | Tour |
|---|---|---|---|
| BH crosscourt | 41% | 51.0%±4.1 | 48.0% |
| BH down the line | 19% | 51.4%±5.9 | 46.5% |
| BH through the middle | 13% | 50.9%±6.9 | 43.8% |
| BH slice crosscourt | 12% | 42.1%±7.0 | 42.1% |
| BH slice through the middle | 7% | 36.2%±8.7 | 35.1% |
| BH slice down the line | 3% | 38.8%±11.1 | 35.8% |
| FH inside-out | 1% | 53.3%±14.7 | 52.6% |
Serve under pressure
Pressure predictability index −3 How much less varied David Nalbandian's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 411 break-point first serves.
Deuce court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 40% | 39% | 69% / 73% |
| Body | 13% | 14% | 63% / 63% |
| T | 48% | 47% | 71% / 75% |
2,135 normal · 111 break-point 1st serves
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Break pt | Won when in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 51% | 64% / 73% |
| Body | 5% | 6% | 63% / 63% |
| T | 41% | 43% | 70% / 72% |
1,773 normal · 300 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 | 40% | 63.1%±2.6 n=892 | 53% ▲ |
| Body | 13% | 58.4%±4.6 n=287 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 48% | 60.5%±2.4 n=1,067 | 47% |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.22).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.
Ad court
| 1st serve | Usage | Points won | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wide | 54% | 61.4%±2.4 n=1,116 | 46% ▼ |
| Body | 5% | 61.8%±6.9 n=103 | 0% ▼ |
| T | 41% | 62.4%±2.7 n=854 | 54% ▲ |
Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.63).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.
Exploitability 0.46 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: +0.3±2.4 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. (1,526 repeats, 2,699 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 | 78 | 40% | +2.9±7.8 | |
| 1st | Ad court | T | 494 | 26% | −2.4±3.1 | |
| 1st | Ad court | Wide | 632 | 29% | +1.3±2.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Body | 101 | 24% | −13.0±6.1 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | T | 586 | 25% | −0.1±2.9 | |
| 1st | Deuce court | Wide | 686 | 27% | +0.2±2.7 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Body | 217 | 53% | +4.0±5.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | T | 146 | 48% | −1.1±6.2 | |
| 2nd | Ad court | Wide | 496 | 54% | +5.9±3.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Body | 295 | 52% | +2.9±4.6 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | T | 371 | 57% | +6.9±4.1 | |
| 2nd | Deuce court | Wide | 233 | 51% | +2.7±5.1 |
Signature patterns
Recurring sequences that win more than David Nalbandian's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.
Serve → +1
- T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 63% · −1.7±7.3 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.5% · won 61% · −4.1±7.1 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 61% · −3.8±6.2 vs own baseline
- Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 61% · −3.8±6.2 vs own baseline
- T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 60% · −4.6±6.6 vs own baseline
Return
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 8.0% · won 57% · +15.9±4.6 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 4.1% · won 56% · +14.6±6.3 vs own baseline
- vs body serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.3% · won 60% · +19.2±7.8 vs own baseline
- vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.9% · won 57% · +16.0±7.2 vs own baseline
- vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 4.8% · won 51% · +9.9±5.9 vs own baseline
Rally, consecutive own shots
- BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 5.2% · won 55% · +4.7±4.7 vs own baseline
- FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 55% · +4.9±5.2 vs own baseline
- FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 56% · +6.1±6.7 vs own baseline
- BH crosscourt → BH down the line used 5.3% · won 54% · +3.9±4.6 vs own baseline
- FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.9% · won 54% · +4.1±5.4 vs own baseline
Discovered sequences
Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often David Nalbandian 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 0.6% · won 61% · +10.2±7.8 vs own baseline · +10.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gustavo Kuerten (3/8), Roger Federer (14/23)
- T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 63% · +12.1±9.2 vs own baseline · +17.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Roger Federer (14/17)
- FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 60% · +8.8±8.1 vs own baseline · +10.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Gustavo Kuerten (2/7), Roger Federer (9/18)
- Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH down the line used 0.6% · won 60% · +8.6±8.1 vs own baseline · +11.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lleyton Hewitt (6/17), Dmitry Tursunov (3/6)
- Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 59% · +7.6±7.6 vs own baseline · +11.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Marcos Baghdatis (4/10), Xavier Malisse (4/6)
- FH down the line → BH slice crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 59% · +8.2±8.6 vs own baseline · +10.4 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 the middle · serve +1 | +2.3 | 214 |
| BH to the middle · return +1 | +1.7 | 189 |
| BH to their backhand · return +1 | +0.9 | 477 |
| BH to the middle · rally | +0.7 | 572 |
| FH to their backhand · return +1 | +0.7 | 297 |
Most exposed to
| BH to their forehand · return | −3.1 | 327 |
| BH slice to their backhand · return | −2.4 | 225 |
| FH to the middle · serve +1 | −2.2 | 270 |
| FH to their backhand · return | −1.7 | 404 |
| BH slice to the middle · return | −1.7 | 267 |
Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Karen Khachanov, Andy Murray, Joao Fonseca, Yoshihito Nishioka
Tactical fingerprint
Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the ATP average, in standard deviations.
| Avg rally length | 4.3 | |
| Wide serves · ad | 54% | |
| BH down the line | 23% | |
| T serves · deuce | 48% | |
| T serves · ad | 41% | |
| FH down the line | 32% | |
| Chipped returns | 18% | |
| Drop shots / shot | 1.6% | |
| 1st serve in | 61% | |
| Points at net | 11% | |
| Point-ending shots | 22.6% | |
| Serve & volley | 2% | |
| Backhand slice | 16% | |
| Unforced errors / shot | 8.9% | |
| Wide serves · deuce | 40% | |
| Run-around forehands | 10% | |
| Forehand share | 48% | |
| Deep returns | 20% | |
| Through the middle | 19% |
Plays most like
- Richard Gasquet 2002–2025 plan v
- Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011 plan v
- Andy Murray 2005–2024 plan v
- Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
- Nikolay Davydenko 2002–2014 plan v
- Novak Djokovic 2005–2026 plan v
- Learner Tien 2022–2026 plan v
- Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009 plan v
Closest from another era
- Learner Tien 2022–2026
- Benjamin Bonzi 2021–2025
- Jack Draper 2022–2026
Charted matches
- David Ferrer v David Nalbandian L Buenos Aires SF · Clay · 25 Feb 2012
- Rafael Nadal v David Nalbandian L US Open R32 · Hard · 4 Sep 2011
- David Nalbandian v Lleyton Hewitt Australian Open R128 · Hard · 18 Jan 2011
- David Nalbandian v Andy Murray L Canada Masters QF · Hard · 13 Aug 2010
- Marcos Baghdatis v David Nalbandian W Washington F · Hard · 7 Aug 2010
- David Nalbandian v Mikhail Youzhny W Davis Cup World Group QF RR · Hard · 11 Jul 2010
- Jo Wilfried Tsonga v David Nalbandian L Paris Masters F · Hard · 2 Nov 2008
- David Nalbandian v Nikolay Davydenko W Paris Masters SF · Hard · 1 Nov 2008
- Roger Federer v David Nalbandian L Basel F · Hard · 26 Oct 2008
- Robin Soderling v David Nalbandian W Stockholm F · Hard · 12 Oct 2008
- Roger Federer v David Nalbandian L Monte Carlo Masters QF · Clay · 25 Apr 2008
- Richard Gasquet v David Nalbandian W Paris Masters SF · Hard · 3 Nov 2007