RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 47 charted matches · 2012–2025

Fabio Fognini

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.1% ±2.5 raw 58.4% · tour 63.4% · 3,548 points
Return points won 38.1% ±2.6 raw 35.2% · tour 36.6% · 3,470 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 ±0.00 ±0.06 better than 58% of ATP · raw ±0.00
Shot selection −0.12 ±0.12 better than 36% of ATP · raw −0.12
Execution −1.06 ±0.38 better than 24% of ATP · raw −1.04
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 46 matches
Adaptation speed −0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.05 ±0.54 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,194 shots · better than 71% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.46 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 67% 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 18,695 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Fabio Fognini 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 · 1,289 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 36% 42.4%±3.7 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 41.8%±4.3 43.7%
BH down the line 13% 44.0%±6.0 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 39.4%±7.4 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 6% 29.8%±7.8 35.1%
FH inside-out 4% 53.0%±9.3 51.8%
FH inside-in 4% 59.6%±9.9 54.7%
FH through the middle 1% 46.3%±13.1 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 1,007 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 25% 45.9%±5.0 51.5%
FH crosscourt 24% 48.7%±5.1 52.7%
FH through the middle 15% 42.2%±6.3 47.0%
BH crosscourt 10% 49.1%±7.4 49.1%
BH through the middle 10% 45.3%±7.5 46.8%
BH down the line 6% 48.4%±9.1 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 3% 83.2%±9.0 70.5%
FH crosscourt + approach 2% 79.4%±10.6 69.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 728 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 34% 48.9%±5.0 48.0%
BH through the middle 25% 38.4%±5.6 43.8%
BH down the line 13% 39.0%±7.5 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 35.6%±8.3 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 8% 32.5%±8.6 35.1%
FH inside-out 4% 54.1%±11.7 52.6%
FH inside-in 2% 52.3%±13.3 54.3%
BH slice down the line 1% 27.2%±13.4 35.8%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 723 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 37% 44.5%±4.9 46.6%
FH down the line 24% 42.9%±5.9 44.7%
FH through the middle 24% 42.3%±5.9 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 6% 32.6%±9.9 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 32.4%±10.9 30.9%
FH down the line + approach 2% 81.9%±10.9 69.3%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 48.1%±14.8 49.6%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +5 How much less varied Fabio Fognini's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 395 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 44% 42% 71% / 73%
Body 13% 10% 56% / 63%
T 43% 48% 68% / 75%

1,747 normal · 104 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 47% 42% 67% / 73%
Body 14% 10% 57% / 63%
T 40% 48% ▲ 67% / 72%

1,399 normal · 291 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
Wide44% 60.7%±2.8 n=812 57% ▲
Body13% 51.5%±5.1 n=232 0% ▼
T44% 59.6%±2.8 n=807 43%

Off equilibrium (p = 0.011): serve wide more. Gap 1.6 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 58.6%±2.9 n=778 46%
Body13% 51.5%±5.2 n=219 0% ▼
T41% 59.0%±3.0 n=693 54% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.05).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.69 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: −0.4±3.2 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. (1,222 repeats, 2,225 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 83 29% −7.7±7.0
1stAd courtT 360 29% +1.0±3.8
1stAd courtWide 545 29% +2.0±3.1
1stDeuce courtBody 104 27% −9.8±6.3
1stDeuce courtT 496 25% +0.3±3.1
1stDeuce courtWide 537 31% +3.9±3.2
2ndAd courtBody 165 51% +1.3±5.9
2ndAd courtT 71 45% −3.9±8.1
2ndAd courtWide 421 45% −3.5±3.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 223 47% −2.5±5.2
2ndDeuce courtT 350 47% −2.6±4.2
2ndDeuce courtWide 107 44% −4.0±7.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 62% · +0.1±8.2 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 61% · −0.4±7.6 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 60% · −2.0±7.0 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 59% · −3.1±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 56% · −5.6±8.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.5% · won 52% · +13.2±8.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 49% · +10.5±7.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 51% · +12.7±8.6 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.2% · won 45% · +6.4±8.8 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 43% · +4.4±7.2 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 54% · +8.6±7.2 vs own baseline
  2. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 51% · +6.4±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.8% · won 51% · +6.1±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 49% · +3.6±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.2% · won 49% · +3.7±7.9 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 60% · +12.7±11.6 vs own baseline · +15.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. BH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.2% · won 61% · +13.2±11.9 vs own baseline · +20.8 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Dominic Thiem (3/6)
  3. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 57% · +9.2±11.4 vs own baseline · +18.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Body serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 55% · +8.1±11.3 vs own baseline · +6.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, deep → BH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 57% · +9.4±12.6 vs own baseline · +23.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 54% · +7.1±11.3 vs own baseline · +6.1 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

BH to their forehand · return +1+1.6170
BH slice to the middle · return+1.5186
Body 2nd serve · deuce court+1.3276
FH slice to the middle · return+0.8129
FH to their backhand · return +1+0.7208

Most exposed to

BH to their backhand · return−2.6546
BH slice to the middle · return−2.4145
FH to the middle · return−1.2672
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.0350
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.0421

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.42, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.36, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.16, Casper Ruud +1.14, Pedro Martinez +1.13

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +0.41, Fabian Marozsan +0.32, Pedro Martinez +0.31, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.20, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.20

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Miomir Kecmanovic, Casper Ruud, Zhizhen Zhang, Bernard Tomic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Unforced errors / shot12.0%
FH down the line34%
Drop shots / shot2.2%
Deep returns31%
Run-around forehands23%
Chipped returns19%
Avg rally length4.2
T serves · ad41%
Point-ending shots25.5%
Through the middle26%
BH down the line21%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Forehand share52%
T serves · deuce44%
Backhand slice17%
Points at net10%
Serve & volley1%
1st serve in59%
Wide serves · ad46%

Plays most like

  1. Laslo Djere 2018–2026 plan v
  2. Roman Safiullin 2017–2025 plan v
  3. Otto Virtanen 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Alexander Shevchenko 2023–2026 plan v
  5. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
  6. Matteo Arnaldi 2022–2025 plan v
  7. Lucas Pouille 2015–2024 plan v
  8. Gregoire Barrere 2016–2024 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Sebastien Grosjean 1999–2005
  3. Marat Safin 1998–2009

Charted matches