RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 42 charted matches · 2020–2025

Francisco Cerundolo

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.6% ±2.7 raw 59.2% · tour 63.4% · 3,315 points
Return points won 39.1% ±2.7 raw 38.2% · tour 36.6% · 3,352 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 +0.11 ±0.06 better than 82% of ATP · raw +0.11
Shot selection +0.26 ±0.12 better than 76% of ATP · raw +0.25
Execution −0.40 ±0.49 better than 48% of ATP · raw −0.43
Tactical adaptability +0.07 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 39 matches
Adaptation speed +0.06 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Long-rally execution −0.51 ±0.57 shot 9 on v own earlier rally shots · 2,327 shots · better than 12% of ATP
Points left on the table 2.23 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 89% 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 18,103 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Francisco Cerundolo 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 · 1,656 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 46% 43.9%±2.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 22% 39.7%±4.1 43.7%
FH inside-out 8% 53.1%±6.5 51.8%
BH down the line 8% 46.2%±6.7 46.4%
BH slice crosscourt 5% 37.4%±7.8 42.5%
FH inside-in 5% 59.5%±8.1 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 3% 25.9%±9.1 35.1%
FH through the middle 1% 43.7%±13.1 45.2%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 908 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 44% 44.0%±4.0 48.0%
BH through the middle 20% 37.1%±5.6 43.8%
BH down the line 11% 41.6%±7.5 46.5%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 26.6%±7.6 42.1%
FH inside-out 6% 56.5%±9.7 52.6%
FH inside-in 4% 50.6%±10.7 54.3%
BH slice through the middle 4% 31.6%±10.1 35.1%
BH slice down the line 1% 32.8%±13.9 35.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 795 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 29% 49.7%±5.2 51.5%
FH crosscourt 27% 57.1%±5.3 52.7%
BH crosscourt 12% 54.9%±7.5 49.1%
FH through the middle 12% 46.8%±7.8 47.0%
BH through the middle 11% 46.6%±7.9 46.8%
BH down the line 3% 60.1%±11.9 48.3%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 56.7%±14.0 56.5%
FH down the line + approach 2% 76.1%±12.2 70.5%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 752 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 44% 48.1%±4.4 46.6%
FH down the line 25% 42.9%±5.7 44.7%
FH through the middle 20% 40.2%±6.2 41.5%
FH slice through the middle 5% 22.3%±9.0 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 3% 33.0%±12.2 30.9%
FH drop shot down the line 2% 59.1%±14.3 49.6%
FH down the line + approach 1% 72.9%±13.4 69.3%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +1 How much less varied Francisco Cerundolo's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 353 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 43% 49% 65% / 73%
Body 16% 13% 61% / 63%
T 41% 38% 69% / 75%

1,639 normal · 87 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 52% 54% 63% / 73%
Body 15% 17% 66% / 63%
T 33% 29% 67% / 72%

1,320 normal · 266 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% 59.2%±2.9 n=752 57% ▲
Body16% 60.6%±4.6 n=277 13% ▼
T40% 58.0%±3.0 n=697 30% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.69).
Optimal mix: +0.1 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide52% 58.3%±2.8 n=832 39% ▼
Body16% 60.4%±4.8 n=248 16%
T32% 61.1%±3.5 n=506 45% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.50).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.24 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: +1.8±3.1 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. (1,151 repeats, 2,077 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 100 39% +1.5±7.0
1stAd courtT 366 33% +4.6±3.9
1stAd courtWide 564 32% +4.6±3.1
1stDeuce courtBody 115 38% +1.2±6.6
1stDeuce courtT 478 30% +4.8±3.3
1stDeuce courtWide 541 28% +0.5±3.1
2ndAd courtBody 160 57% +7.9±5.9
2ndAd courtT 77 52% +2.9±7.9
2ndAd courtWide 335 44% −4.4±4.3
2ndDeuce courtBody 203 52% +2.8±5.4
2ndDeuce courtT 287 50% +0.7±4.6
2ndDeuce courtWide 122 56% +7.5±6.6

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.0% · won 61% · −0.2±8.5 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 61% · −0.3±8.1 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.7% · won 61% · −0.5±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. Body serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 61% · −0.7±8.1 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 56% · −5.5±8.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.7% · won 55% · +14.9±8.3 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 52% · +11.5±8.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.6% · won 50% · +9.7±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.4% · won 47% · +6.7±7.6 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 2.4% · won 47% · +6.4±8.6 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.7% · won 52% · +5.3±6.0 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle used 1.7% · won 53% · +7.2±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 1.6% · won 53% · +6.8±8.4 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.7% · won 51% · +5.1±6.9 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.5% · won 53% · +6.4±8.6 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. FH down the line → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 58% · +10.2±9.3 vs own baseline · +8.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Jannik Sinner (6/8)
  2. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 63% · +15.6±12.4 vs own baseline · +39.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Juan Manuel Cerundolo (10/11)
  3. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.4% · won 57% · +9.2±10.1 vs own baseline · +10.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 58% · +10.2±10.8 vs own baseline · +12.1 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Lorenzo Musetti (6/9)
  5. FH inside-out → BH crosscourt → FH inside-in used 0.2% · won 59% · +11.8±11.8 vs own baseline · +16.6 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.8% · won 54% · +6.3±8.1 vs own baseline · +4.5 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 forehand · serve +1+3.0478
BH to their forehand · return+1.4197
FH to the middle · return+1.2549
FH to the middle · return +1+0.9160
FH to their forehand · return+0.9307

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return−5.4236
FH to their backhand · return−2.4344
FH to the middle · return−2.1568
Wide 2nd serve · ad court−1.9332
BH to their backhand · return−1.8742

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Miomir Kecmanovic +1.44, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.35, Rafael Nadal +1.34, Casper Ruud +1.28, Daniil Medvedev +1.23

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.00, Fabian Marozsan +0.91, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.87, Pedro Martinez +0.86, Alexander Shevchenko +0.74

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Tomas Machac, Andrey Rublev, Alexei Popyrin, Daniil Medvedev, Novak Djokovic

Tactical fingerprint

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

Run-around forehands32%
1st serve in66%
Drop shots / shot2.6%
Avg rally length4.5
Deep returns31%
Unforced errors / shot11.2%
Wide serves · ad52%
FH down the line32%
Point-ending shots24.5%
Wide serves · deuce44%
Forehand share52%
Through the middle23%
Serve & volley1%
Chipped returns9%
Backhand slice12%
T serves · deuce40%
Points at net7%
T serves · ad32%
BH down the line13%

Plays most like

  1. Carlos Alcaraz 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Tommy Paul 2016–2026 plan v
  3. Luca Nardi 2022–2025 plan v
  4. Guy Den Ouden 2024–2026 plan v
  5. Kei Nishikori 2011–2025 plan v
  6. Radu Albot 2016–2024 plan v
  7. Pablo Andujar 2013–2023 plan v
  8. Roberto Bautista Agut 2013–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Andre Agassi 1988–2006
  3. Guillermo Coria 2002–2005

Charted matches