RallyIQ

ATP · Left-handed · 53 charted matches · 2003–2023

Feliciano Lopez

Archetype: Serve-and-volleyer · Net rusher

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 67.3% ±2.3 raw 65.1% · tour 63.4% · 4,689 points
Return points won 32.8% ±2.3 raw 28.7% · tour 36.6% · 4,492 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 −0.05 ±0.07 better than 44% of ATP · raw −0.05
Shot selection −0.69 ±0.13 better than 6% of ATP · raw −0.69
Execution −2.05 ±0.46 better than 3% of ATP · raw −2.06
Tactical adaptability +0.15 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 52 matches
Adaptation speed +0.02 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.04 ±0.55 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,258 shots · better than 72% of ATP
Points left on the table 3.52 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 8% 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 21,398 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Feliciano Lopez 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 · 1,066 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 24% 36.9%±4.8 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 19% 41.8%±5.5 35.1%
BH slice down the line 15% 33.7%±5.7 37.1%
BH through the middle 13% 36.8%±6.3 43.7%
BH crosscourt 11% 36.5%±6.7 47.6%
FH inside-out 5% 47.2%±9.4 51.8%
FH inside-in 3% 46.9%±11.5 54.7%
FH through the middle 3% 34.8%±11.2 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 834 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 22% 42.3%±5.7 52.7%
FH down the line 18% 51.6%±6.3 51.5%
FH through the middle 15% 42.6%±6.7 47.0%
BH slice down the line 9% 47.6%±8.3 45.6%
BH slice through the middle 8% 44.7%±8.9 44.8%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 43.9%±9.0 47.0%
BH through the middle 6% 37.5%±9.3 46.8%
BH crosscourt 5% 35.2%±10.0 49.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 799 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 55% 38.5%±3.8 46.6%
FH through the middle 23% 35.1%±5.5 41.5%
FH down the line 12% 39.1%±7.5 44.7%
FH slice crosscourt 4% 25.4%±10.3 30.9%
FH down the line + approach 2% 74.0%±11.6 69.3%
FH slice through the middle 2% 20.8%±10.8 24.5%
FH slice down the line 1% 23.8%±12.8 25.6%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 694 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 29% 35.9%±5.3 42.1%
BH slice down the line 18% 31.6%±6.3 35.8%
BH slice through the middle 16% 42.3%±7.1 35.1%
BH crosscourt 14% 30.5%±6.9 48.0%
BH through the middle 12% 32.8%±7.7 43.8%
FH inside-out 3% 50.1%±13.2 52.6%
BH down the line 2% 36.2%±13.6 46.5%
FH inside-in 2% 42.0%±14.1 54.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +7 How much less varied Feliciano Lopez's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 350 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 43% 80% / 73%
Body 11% 7% 69% / 63%
T 49% 50% 74% / 75%

2,367 normal · 76 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 50% 46% 80% / 73%
Body 9% 5% 69% / 63%
T 41% 49% 82% / 72%

1,948 normal · 274 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
Wide40% 64.5%±2.5 n=976 53% ▲
Body11% 63.2%±4.6 n=265 0% ▼
T49% 63.1%±2.3 n=1,202 47% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.77).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide49% 67.8%±2.3 n=1,096 62% ▲
Body9% 64.9%±5.3 n=189 0% ▼
T42% 65.5%±2.5 n=937 38% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.41).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.43 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: +2.2±2.0 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. (1,885 repeats, 2,674 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 167 32% −5.5±5.4
1stAd courtT 562 25% −3.5±2.9
1stAd courtWide 589 18% −9.6±2.5
1stDeuce courtBody 190 32% −4.9±5.2
1stDeuce courtT 620 19% −6.1±2.5
1stDeuce courtWide 732 24% −3.7±2.5
2ndAd courtBody 299 41% −8.1±4.5
2ndAd courtT 282 43% −6.4±4.6
2ndAd courtWide 226 40% −8.7±5.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 305 38% −11.2±4.4
2ndDeuce courtT 187 46% −3.7±5.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 312 43% −5.6±4.4

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.0% · won 70% · −0.4±7.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 62% · −8.1±7.5 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.1% · won 61% · −9.5±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 55% · −15.0±6.4 vs own baseline
  5. Body serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.9% · won 52% · −17.7±6.7 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.7% · won 42% · +11.2±7.5 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.1% · won 41% · +10.8±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH slice crosscourt, mid used 2.6% · won 38% · +7.3±7.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt, short used 2.1% · won 38% · +7.7±8.1 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → BH slice through the middle, mid used 3.8% · won 36% · +5.7±6.4 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH slice down the line → BH slice crosscourt used 1.4% · won 48% · +9.6±9.0 vs own baseline
  2. BH slice down the line → FH down the line used 1.1% · won 48% · +9.3±9.7 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 1.9% · won 45% · +6.4±8.1 vs own baseline
  4. BH slice crosscourt → BH slice through the middle used 2.4% · won 44% · +5.5±7.4 vs own baseline
  5. FH crosscourt → BH slice crosscourt used 4.0% · won 42% · +3.5±6.0 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Feliciano Lopez 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 → FH volley down the line used 0.2% · won 59% · +16.6±12.8 vs own baseline · +21.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 55% · +13.0±11.8 vs own baseline · +12.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. Wide serve → BH slice through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 0.2% · won 56% · +14.1±12.9 vs own baseline · +6.2 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH slice down the line → BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 53% · +11.0±11.8 vs own baseline · +20.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH down the line → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 52% · +9.9±11.7 vs own baseline · +6.3 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, deep → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 54% · +11.4±12.7 vs own baseline · +18.2 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 slice to their forehand · return +1+2.7211
BH slice to their forehand · return+2.2387
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.91,096
BH slice to their forehand · rally+1.6589
BH slice to their backhand · return +1+1.2215

Most exposed to

Wide 1st serve · ad court−2.01,010
BH to their backhand · return +1−1.8212
BH to their forehand · return +1−1.6262
FH to their backhand · return +1−1.5343
BH slice to their forehand · rally−1.4162

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, Reilly Opelka, Nicolas Jarry, Nick Kyrgios, Maxime Cressy

Tactical fingerprint

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

Backhand slice67%
Chipped returns47%
Serve & volley30%
Points at net17%
Unforced errors / shot11.7%
T serves · deuce49%
Forehand share56%
T serves · ad42%
Point-ending shots25.7%
Deep returns29%
Drop shots / shot1.8%
Through the middle25%
Wide serves · ad49%
Wide serves · deuce40%
Avg rally length3.5
Run-around forehands12%
1st serve in57%
FH down the line25%
BH down the line10%

Plays most like

  1. Christopher Oconnell 2015–2026 plan v
  2. Malek Jaziri 2015–2023 plan v
  3. Tim Van Rijthoven 2021–2023 plan v
  4. Grigor Dimitrov 2009–2026 plan v
  5. Stan Wawrinka 2006–2026 plan v
  6. Roger Federer 1998–2021 plan v
  7. Tommy Haas 1996–2017 plan v
  8. Ethan Quinn 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Guy Forget 1991–1996
  2. Ivan Lendl 1979–1994
  3. Brad Gilbert 1987–1994

Charted matches