RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 24 charted matches · 2022–2026

Flavio Cobolli

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.0% ±2.6 raw 60.9% · tour 63.4% · 1,938 points
Return points won 35.2% ±2.6 raw 31.4% · tour 36.6% · 1,796 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 −0.14 ±0.11 better than 21% of ATP · raw −0.14
Shot selection −0.07 ±0.21 better than 44% of ATP · raw −0.07
Execution −1.35 ±0.63 better than 14% of ATP · raw −1.37
Tactical adaptability −0.02 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 23 matches
Adaptation speed +0.07 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.80 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 31% 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 9,397 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Flavio Cobolli 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 · 643 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 45.9%±4.8 47.6%
BH through the middle 26% 40.2%±5.9 43.7%
BH down the line 14% 36.0%±7.5 46.4%
FH inside-out 4% 57.0%±11.8 51.8%
BH slice through the middle 4% 35.6%±11.7 35.1%
FH inside-in 4% 51.0%±12.3 54.7%
BH slice crosscourt 2% 39.7%±13.8 42.5%
FH through the middle 2% 40.1%±14.7 45.2%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 395 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 30% 51.0%±7.0 46.6%
FH through the middle 26% 36.0%±7.1 41.5%
FH down the line 26% 48.3%±7.4 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 9% 17.7%±8.4 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 31.8%±13.5 30.9%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 375 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 42% 46.4%±6.1 48.0%
BH through the middle 25% 36.3%±7.4 43.8%
BH down the line 14% 49.0%±9.7 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 55.2%±13.4 42.1%
FH inside-in 4% 53.9%±13.9 54.3%
FH inside-out 4% 52.9%±13.9 52.6%
BH slice through the middle 3% 27.3%±12.8 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 361 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 26% 55.1%±7.7 51.5%
FH crosscourt 22% 42.1%±8.1 52.7%
FH through the middle 22% 43.3%±8.2 47.0%
BH through the middle 12% 37.1%±10.0 46.8%
BH crosscourt 11% 42.8%±10.7 49.1%
BH down the line 6% 45.5%±12.8 48.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +21 How much less varied Flavio Cobolli's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 192 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 35% 66% / 73%
Body 6% 2% 65% / 63%
T 52% 63% ▲ 74% / 75%

962 normal · 43 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 56% 74% ▲ 70% / 73%
Body 8% 5% 66% / 63%
T 36% 21% ▼ 73% / 72%

780 normal · 149 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
Wide42% 57.3%±3.8 n=419 29% ▼
Body6% 61.9%±8.3 n=63 6%
T52% 63.1%±3.4 n=523 65% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.12).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide58% 61.6%±3.3 n=543 53% ▼
Body8% 60.8%±8.0 n=71 0% ▼
T34% 60.4%±4.3 n=315 47% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.93).
Optimal mix: +0.2 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.37 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: +3.0±3.8 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. (882 repeats, 1,004 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 23 32% −4.7±10.6
1stAd courtT 222 26% −1.7±4.6
1stAd courtWide 282 26% −1.2±4.1
1stDeuce courtBody 39 30% −6.3±9.1
1stDeuce courtT 292 23% −2.5±3.8
1stDeuce courtWide 277 27% −0.4±4.2
2ndAd courtBody 66 45% −4.8±8.3
2ndAd courtT 81 49% +0.1±7.8
2ndAd courtWide 171 36% −12.3±5.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 84 51% +2.5±7.7
2ndDeuce courtT 166 40% −10.0±5.8
2ndDeuce courtWide 87 49% +1.0±7.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-in used 2.2% · won 62% · −2.3±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 4.0% · won 60% · −4.4±8.2 vs own baseline
  3. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 58% · −6.7±10.2 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 56% · −7.8±10.0 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 56% · −8.4±10.1 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 3.8% · won 49% · +15.0±9.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 4.1% · won 47% · +13.0±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 46% · +12.7±10.0 vs own baseline
  4. vs body serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.2% · won 46% · +11.8±11.3 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH through the middle, deep used 2.4% · won 44% · +10.1±11.0 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 4.6% · won 52% · +7.7±8.1 vs own baseline
  2. FH down the line → FH down the line used 1.5% · won 52% · +8.3±11.4 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 50% · +5.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH inside-in used 1.3% · won 50% · +6.4±11.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 49% · +5.4±11.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 1.2% · won 53% · +7.7±9.1 vs own baseline · +9.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (1/7), Jesper De Jong (6/7)
  2. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return, mid → FH inside-in used 0.3% · won 56% · +10.6±12.9 vs own baseline · +13.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 54% · +8.6±12.0 vs own baseline · +10.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jaume Munar (4/6)
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.8% · won 49% · +4.2±7.9 vs own baseline · +2.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Holger Rune (2/7), Sebastian Baez (7/13)
  5. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 52% · +6.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +8.4 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.4% · won 51% · +5.5±12.7 vs own baseline · +7.4 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

Wide 2nd serve · ad court+1.9254
BH to their backhand · serve +1+1.6142
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.4149
Wide 2nd serve · deuce court+0.9169
BH to their backhand · return +1+0.4144

Most exposed to

Wide 2nd serve · ad court−2.4171
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.5166
FH to their forehand · rally−1.5467
T 1st serve · ad court−1.0323
BH to their backhand · return−1.0364

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Miomir Kecmanovic +1.30, Rafael Nadal +1.27, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.13, Jack Draper +1.00, Daniil Medvedev +0.99

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +0.42, Fabian Marozsan +0.33, Pedro Martinez +0.31, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.24, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.17

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Reilly Opelka, Nick Kyrgios, Arthur Rinderknech, Nicolas Jarry, Miomir Kecmanovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · ad58%
T serves · deuce52%
Through the middle29%
Unforced errors / shot11.4%
Run-around forehands23%
Chipped returns20%
FH down the line32%
Drop shots / shot2.0%
Forehand share55%
Point-ending shots23.9%
BH down the line20%
Avg rally length3.9
Wide serves · deuce42%
Serve & volley2%
Deep returns23%
Backhand slice12%
T serves · ad34%
Points at net7%
1st serve in58%

Plays most like

  1. Aleksandar Vukic 2019–2025 plan v
  2. Kyle Edmund 2016–2023 plan v
  3. Gael Monfils 2005–2026 plan v
  4. Jiri Lehecka 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Thiago Seyboth Wild 2019–2026 plan v
  6. Jannik Sinner 2013–2026 plan v
  7. Philipp Kohlschreiber 2008–2019 plan v
  8. Fabio Fognini 2012–2025 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Gustavo Kuerten 1997–2007
  2. Ivan Ljubicic 2003–2011
  3. Juan Carlos Ferrero 2000–2009

Charted matches