RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 5 charted matches · 2017–2024

Facundo Bagnis

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 63.4% ±3.7 raw 61.1% · tour 63.4% · 447 points
Return points won 34.8% ±3.7 raw 32.7% · tour 36.6% · 419 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 −0.22 ±0.20 better than 11% of ATP · raw −0.22
Shot selection +0.04 ±0.24 better than 57% of ATP · raw +0.06
Execution −1.43 ±1.11 better than 11% of ATP · raw −1.12

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 2,431 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Facundo Bagnis 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 · 153 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 42% 47.1%±9.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 14% 46.2%±12.7 47.0%
BH through the middle 12% 44.5%±13.1 46.8%
FH down the line 11% 54.9%±13.5 51.5%
BH down the line 10% 33.3%±13.1 48.3%
BH crosscourt 7% 39.4%±14.7 49.1%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 147 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 31% 37.7%±9.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 25% 41.7%±10.7 43.7%
BH down the line 18% 38.9%±11.7 46.4%
FH inside-in 8% 49.8%±14.5 54.7%
FH inside-out 7% 51.2%±15.0 51.8%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 92 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 28% 47.3%±12.1 43.8%
BH crosscourt 28% 38.3%±11.8 48.0%
BH down the line 17% 45.3%±13.6 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 11% 33.4%±14.2 35.1%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 86 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 29% 39.1%±12.0 43.0%
BH crosscourt 26% 46.2%±12.7 46.9%
BH down the line 22% 43.2%±13.0 44.2%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Facundo Bagnis's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 51 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 27% 40% ▲ 74% / 73%
Body 17% 0% ▼ 66% / 63%
T 56% 60% 67% / 75%

221 normal · 10 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 46% 71% / 73%
Body 11% 10% 65% / 63%
T 45% 44% 75% / 72%

175 normal · 41 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
Wide28% 56.2%±8.4 n=64 41% ▲
Body16% 59.5%±9.9 n=37 3% ▼
T56% 59.3%±6.4 n=130 56%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.81).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide45% 60.8%±7.1 n=97 42% ▼
Body11% 66.2%±10.7 n=23 0% ▼
T44% 66.0%±6.9 n=96 58% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.53 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: −3.2±5.0 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. (151 repeats, 286 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 11 34% −2.6±12.2
1stAd courtT 59 33% +5.0±8.2
1stAd courtWide 34 21% −6.7±8.3
1stDeuce courtBody 18 35% −1.3±11.4
1stDeuce courtT 59 23% −2.0±7.3
1stDeuce courtWide 71 28% +0.7±7.3
2ndAd courtBody 26 46% −3.3±11.0
2ndAd courtT 38 50% +0.4±10.0
2ndAd courtWide 34 40% −8.5±10.1
2ndDeuce courtBody 23 56% +7.0±11.2
2ndDeuce courtT 20 38% −11.9±11.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 25 43% −5.5±11.0

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 21.0% · won 45% · −18.8±9.3 vs own baseline

Return

  1. Not enough data

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 12.1% · won 44% · +6.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 6.2% · won 46% · +7.8±11.6 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 6.5% · won 43% · +5.0±11.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 7.7% · won 42% · +3.7±10.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 6.8% · won 39% · +0.4±11.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 44% · +1.9±11.4 vs own baseline · −6.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Luciano Darderi (7/17)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 44% · +1.9±11.4 vs own baseline · −2.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Luciano Darderi (7/16)
  3. FH crosscourt → BH down the line → BH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 41% · −1.5±12.4 vs own baseline · −10.0 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Federico Coria (3/7), Luciano Darderi (4/9)
  4. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → BH down the line used 1.4% · won 35% · −7.7±12.1 vs own baseline · −24.4 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Luciano Darderi (1/8), Federico Coria (3/8)

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 backhand · rally+1.3267
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.2130

Most exposed to

BH to the middle · rally−2.4130
BH to their forehand · rally−1.9123
FH to their backhand · rally−1.3209

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Juan Carlos Prado Angelo, Raphael Collignon, Jack Draper, Pedro Martinez, Thiago Monteiro

Charted matches