RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 19 charted matches · 2013–2023

Federico Delbonis

Archetype: Avoids the wide serve · Ad-court slider

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.6% ±2.9 raw 60.8% · tour 63.4% · 1,412 points
Return points won 35.6% ±2.9 raw 32.5% · tour 36.6% · 1,375 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 −0.30 ±0.16 better than 5% of ATP · raw −0.30
Shot selection +0.03 ±0.22 better than 56% of ATP · raw +0.04
Execution −1.01 ±0.49 better than 25% of ATP · raw −0.94
Tactical adaptability −0.01 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 19 matches
Adaptation speed −0.05 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.96 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 22% 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 7,367 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Federico Delbonis 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 · 487 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 33% 48.9%±6.1 52.7%
FH through the middle 22% 46.8%±7.3 47.0%
FH down the line 13% 51.0%±9.0 51.5%
BH through the middle 12% 42.0%±9.3 46.8%
BH crosscourt 8% 39.1%±10.3 49.1%
BH down the line 7% 43.0%±11.0 48.3%
FH crosscourt + approach 3% 68.5%±12.9 69.9%

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

position worth 46% to the average player · 442 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 34% 47.8%±6.3 43.7%
BH crosscourt 25% 48.9%±7.2 47.6%
BH down the line 19% 46.3%±8.1 46.4%
BH slice through the middle 6% 33.4%±11.2 35.1%
BH slice down the line 4% 42.1%±13.0 37.1%
FH inside-in 4% 47.0%±13.7 54.7%
FH inside-out 3% 54.0%±14.1 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 39.1%±14.2 42.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 335 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 55% 49.9%±5.7 46.6%
FH through the middle 23% 33.6%±7.9 41.5%
FH down the line 13% 41.5%±10.1 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 6% 22.3%±10.8 24.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 279 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 45.7%±8.0 52.7%
FH through the middle 19% 45.2%±9.5 47.4%
FH down the line 15% 56.4%±10.4 52.0%
BH crosscourt 14% 39.9%±10.4 49.6%
BH through the middle 13% 49.7%±11.1 46.8%
BH down the line 5% 42.6%±13.7 49.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +6 How much less varied Federico Delbonis's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 129 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 32% 41% ▲ 69% / 73%
Body 19% 13% 63% / 63%
T 49% 46% 68% / 75%

701 normal · 39 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 64% ▲ 70% / 73%
Body 15% 18% 59% / 63%
T 29% 18% ▼ 71% / 72%

582 normal · 90 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
Wide32% 61.3%±4.9 n=239 45% ▲
Body19% 62.7%±6.1 n=140 6% ▼
T49% 61.7%±4.0 n=361 49%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.94).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide57% 60.0%±4.0 n=385 58%
Body15% 55.3%±7.1 n=103 2% ▼
T27% 61.7%±5.5 n=184 40% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.36).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.50 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: −3.7±4.4 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. (483 repeats, 891 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 61 44% +7.1±8.6
1stAd courtT 201 26% −2.3±4.7
1stAd courtWide 163 22% −4.9±4.9
1stDeuce courtBody 49 37% ±0.0±8.9
1stDeuce courtT 157 21% −4.5±4.9
1stDeuce courtWide 255 28% +0.6±4.4
2ndAd courtBody 84 45% −4.8±7.7
2ndAd courtT 72 46% −3.4±8.1
2ndAd courtWide 77 46% −2.1±7.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 80 50% +0.7±7.8
2ndDeuce courtT 49 51% +0.8±9.3
2ndDeuce courtWide 125 38% −10.4±6.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 3.6% · won 67% · +2.8±9.1 vs own baseline
  2. Body serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 65% · +0.8±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 61% · −3.8±10.9 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 3.3% · won 61% · −3.6±9.7 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle used 3.2% · won 60% · −4.2±9.8 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 5.1% · won 47% · +8.6±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (ad court) → BH down the line, mid used 3.7% · won 45% · +6.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.7% · won 45% · +6.4±10.8 vs own baseline
  4. vs T serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.0% · won 42% · +3.1±10.5 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.9% · won 41% · +2.1±10.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 52% · +7.6±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 5.3% · won 49% · +4.4±8.0 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 3.5% · won 49% · +4.1±9.2 vs own baseline
  4. BH down the line → FH crosscourt used 4.5% · won 47% · +2.6±8.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.7% · won 47% · +2.9±9.1 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Federico Delbonis 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 down the line used 1.1% · won 60% · +12.3±10.0 vs own baseline · +13.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Nicolas Mejia (4/7)
  2. BH through the middle → FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 53% · +5.0±11.3 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH down the line → FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.6% · won 53% · +5.4±12.0 vs own baseline · +10.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +4.4±12.4 vs own baseline · −0.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Fabio Fognini (3/6)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH inside-in → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +4.4±12.4 vs own baseline · +11.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH down the line → FH crosscourt → BH through the middle used 0.5% · won 52% · +4.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +12.4 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 their backhand · serve +1+2.4351
FH to their backhand · rally+1.4716
FH to their backhand · return +1+1.1152
FH to their backhand · return+1.1135
Body 1st serve · deuce court+0.3140

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · deuce court−3.4264
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court−2.8125
T 1st serve · ad court−2.7282
BH to the middle · return−2.4421
Wide 1st serve · ad court−1.2285

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Nick Kyrgios, Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Milos Raonic, Reilly Opelka, Hamad Medjedovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Through the middle31%
Forehand share60%
Wide serves · ad57%
1st serve in64%
T serves · deuce49%
Deep returns31%
BH down the line23%
Avg rally length4.3
Unforced errors / shot10.3%
Run-around forehands18%
Chipped returns14%
Drop shots / shot1.3%
Backhand slice18%
Point-ending shots22.4%
Points at net9%
Serve & volley1%
T serves · ad27%
Wide serves · deuce32%
FH down the line21%

Plays most like

  1. Cameron Norrie 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Yoshihito Nishioka 2015–2025 plan v
  3. Albert Ramos 2014–2025 plan v
  4. Pablo Cuevas 2015–2021 plan v
  5. Thiago Monteiro 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Dominik Koepfer 2018–2025 plan v
  7. Juncheng Shang 2024–2026 plan v
  8. Daniel Elahi Galan 2020–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Andrei Pavel 1999–2006
  2. Thomas Muster 1988–2011
  3. Carlos Moya 1997–2007

Charted matches