RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 24 charted matches · 2021–2026

Fabian Marozsan

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.6% ±3.0 raw 61.7% · tour 63.4% · 1,751 points
Return points won 37.4% ±3.1 raw 34.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,657 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 +0.17 ±0.08 better than 91% of ATP · raw +0.17
Shot selection +0.04 ±0.26 better than 58% of ATP · raw +0.04
Execution +0.87 ±0.78 better than 93% of ATP · raw +0.85
Tactical adaptability −0.03 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 2.29 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 85% 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 8,146 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Fabian Marozsan 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 · 443 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 47% 49.3%±5.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 19% 39.9%±8.0 43.7%
BH down the line 11% 45.2%±10.0 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 29.7%±9.8 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 4% 32.5%±12.7 35.1%
FH inside-out 4% 48.2%±13.7 51.8%
FH inside-in 3% 59.8%±13.6 54.7%
BH drop shot down the line 2% 56.2%±14.7 47.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 335 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 51.1%±7.6 51.5%
FH crosscourt 27% 49.6%±7.8 52.7%
FH through the middle 11% 48.9%±11.0 47.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 59.7%±10.9 49.1%
BH through the middle 9% 54.7%±11.6 46.8%
FH down the line + approach 4% 72.2%±13.0 70.5%
BH down the line 4% 55.2%±14.5 48.3%
FH crosscourt + approach 3% 63.2%±14.5 69.9%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 325 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 40% 43.9%±6.6 46.6%
FH down the line 22% 46.2%±8.5 44.7%
FH through the middle 18% 36.6%±8.9 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 10% 22.9%±9.6 24.5%
FH slice down the line 4% 37.9%±14.1 25.6%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 36.1%±14.2 30.9%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 268 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 48.9%±6.9 46.9%
BH through the middle 23% 41.5%±9.0 43.0%
BH down the line 15% 38.7%±10.4 44.2%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 43.9%±12.0 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 4% 25.0%±13.0 32.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Fabian Marozsan's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 154 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 39% 69% / 73%
Body 10% 8% 69% / 63%
T 43% 53% ▲ 69% / 75%

868 normal · 38 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 51% 47% 71% / 73%
Body 12% 8% 69% / 63%
T 37% 46% ▲ 64% / 72%

721 normal · 116 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
Wide47% 61.8%±3.8 n=424 43% ▼
Body10% 63.6%±7.3 n=87 0% ▼
T44% 62.9%±3.9 n=395 57% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.90).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide50% 62.0%±3.8 n=420 63% ▲
Body11% 62.6%±7.1 n=95 0% ▼
T38% 59.3%±4.3 n=322 37% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.62).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.25 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: +0.9±3.3 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. (640 repeats, 1,055 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 29 36% −1.2±10.3
1stAd courtT 230 29% +0.6±4.6
1stAd courtWide 230 28% +0.5±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 47 39% +2.3±9.1
1stDeuce courtT 260 21% −3.9±3.9
1stDeuce courtWide 270 28% +1.2±4.3
2ndAd courtBody 81 50% +0.9±7.8
2ndAd courtT 66 47% −2.6±8.4
2ndAd courtWide 146 55% +6.5±6.2
2ndDeuce courtBody 83 38% −11.2±7.5
2ndDeuce courtT 130 49% −0.4±6.5
2ndDeuce courtWide 77 46% −1.9±7.9

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.2% · won 67% · +1.3±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 64% · −1.2±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.0% · won 63% · −2.4±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 62% · −3.2±10.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.1% · won 61% · −4.7±9.4 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.4% · won 56% · +13.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 3.7% · won 54% · +11.2±10.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 48% · +5.0±11.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle used 6.0% · won 45% · +2.8±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 2.5% · won 47% · +4.0±11.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.9% · won 53% · +8.2±7.9 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 6.4% · won 52% · +6.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.7% · won 50% · +4.8±8.5 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 51% · +5.8±11.0 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 50% · +4.9±10.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 57% · +7.4±11.5 vs own baseline · +9.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 56% · +6.6±12.9 vs own baseline · +8.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 56% · +6.6±12.9 vs own baseline · +9.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.6% · won 51% · +2.3±8.7 vs own baseline · +3.5 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (4/11), Carlos Alcaraz (6/13)
  5. T serve → FH through the middle return → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 53% · +4.1±13.0 vs own baseline · +4.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 51% · +1.8±9.0 vs own baseline · +2.9 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 · return +1+2.7131
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.3192
BH to the middle · return+2.0303
BH to their backhand · return+1.9239
FH to the middle · return+1.9223

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−5.9133
BH to their backhand · return−3.8292
T 2nd serve · deuce court−3.6130
FH to the middle · return−3.1278
FH to their forehand · return +1−2.9142

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +3.01, Miomir Kecmanovic +2.68, Jack Draper +2.63, Nishesh Basavareddy +2.62, Casper Ruud +2.50

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.78, Pedro Martinez +1.61, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.58, Alexander Shevchenko +1.56, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.50

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Drop shots / shot4.0%
1st serve in65%
Point-ending shots28.9%
Deep returns34%
Unforced errors / shot11.9%
FH down the line33%
Wide serves · deuce47%
Forehand share55%
Run-around forehands20%
Chipped returns16%
Wide serves · ad50%
Points at net11%
T serves · ad38%
BH down the line19%
Avg rally length3.9
T serves · deuce44%
Backhand slice17%
Serve & volley1%
Through the middle19%

Plays most like

  1. Joao Fonseca 2024–2026 plan v
  2. Carlos Alcaraz 2019–2026 plan v
  3. Hubert Hurkacz 2018–2026 plan v
  4. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  6. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v
  7. Sebastian Korda 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Robin Soderling 2004–2011
  2. David Nalbandian 2002–2012
  3. Fernando Gonzalez 2000–2010

Charted matches