RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 44 charted matches · 2019–2025

Lorenzo Sonego

Archetype: High-risk · Runs around the backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 65.3% ±2.4 raw 64.2% · tour 63.4% · 3,770 points
Return points won 34.7% ±2.5 raw 31.7% · tour 36.6% · 3,684 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 −0.13 ±0.09 better than 22% of ATP · raw −0.13
Shot selection +0.12 ±0.22 better than 67% of ATP · raw +0.12
Execution −0.79 ±0.46 better than 33% of ATP · raw −0.72
Tactical adaptability +0.13 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 42 matches
Adaptation speed +0.13 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.89 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 25% 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 17,569 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Lorenzo Sonego 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 · 1,124 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 27% 44.5%±4.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 21% 42.4%±5.0 43.7%
FH inside-out 11% 46.7%±6.9 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 10% 40.4%±7.1 42.5%
BH down the line 9% 35.6%±7.3 46.4%
FH inside-in 6% 46.2%±8.5 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 6% 32.6%±8.2 35.1%
FH through the middle 4% 38.9%±9.8 45.2%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 654 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 23% 42.1%±6.2 46.9%
BH through the middle 23% 39.5%±6.2 43.0%
BH slice through the middle 14% 28.8%±7.0 32.6%
BH slice crosscourt 11% 32.8%±8.1 40.9%
BH slice down the line 7% 30.4%±9.2 33.3%
BH down the line 6% 35.8%±10.1 44.2%
FH inside-out 6% 48.1%±10.5 51.7%
FH inside-in 3% 51.7%±12.7 53.6%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 584 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 43% 38.9%±4.9 46.6%
FH through the middle 20% 33.3%±6.7 41.5%
FH down the line 16% 48.2%±7.8 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 10% 19.9%±7.6 24.5%
FH slice crosscourt 6% 35.0%±10.9 30.9%
FH down the line + approach 3% 72.6%±12.1 69.3%
FH slice down the line 3% 28.1%±12.3 25.6%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 575 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH down the line 23% 45.3%±6.6 51.5%
FH crosscourt 23% 48.7%±6.7 52.7%
FH through the middle 17% 47.4%±7.5 47.0%
BH through the middle 10% 41.7%±9.1 46.8%
BH crosscourt 7% 54.7%±10.6 49.1%
BH down the line 5% 42.7%±12.0 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 4% 71.7%±11.4 70.5%
FH drop shot down the line 3% 52.0%±13.2 56.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +8 How much less varied Lorenzo Sonego's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 330 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 65% ▲ 67% / 73%
Body 12% 9% 63% / 63%
T 33% 26% 75% / 75%

1,895 normal · 77 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 45% 53% 75% / 73%
Body 16% 10% 67% / 63%
T 39% 37% 73% / 72%

1,540 normal · 253 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
Wide56% 61.6%±2.4 n=1,099 55%
Body12% 62.2%±4.9 n=236 0% ▼
T32% 67.1%±3.0 n=637 45% ▲

Off equilibrium (p = 0.044): serve T more. Gap 3.6 points per 100 first serves.
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide46% 66.6%±2.7 n=823 59% ▲
Body15% 62.4%±4.6 n=272 2% ▼
T39% 64.4%±2.9 n=698 39%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.32).
Optimal mix: +0.5 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.67 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: +0.2±2.7 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. (1,531 repeats, 2,146 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 126 30% −6.8±6.0
1stAd courtT 429 22% −6.4±3.2
1stAd courtWide 552 25% −2.3±3.0
1stDeuce courtBody 129 31% −5.9±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 558 23% −2.0±2.9
1stDeuce courtWide 549 26% −1.4±3.0
2ndAd courtBody 161 46% −3.4±5.9
2ndAd courtT 75 43% −6.6±7.9
2ndAd courtWide 404 44% −4.5±3.9
2ndDeuce courtBody 196 47% −2.2±5.5
2ndDeuce courtT 380 46% −3.9±4.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 117 45% −3.6±6.7

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line + approach used 2.1% · won 70% · +2.7±7.6 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.3% · won 62% · −5.6±7.8 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt used 2.4% · won 59% · −8.9±7.8 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 3.0% · won 57% · −10.9±7.3 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.4% · won 54% · −14.1±7.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.3% · won 50% · +15.4±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, deep used 2.9% · won 45% · +10.2±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 3.5% · won 42% · +7.6±7.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 4.2% · won 40% · +5.7±6.7 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.2% · won 40% · +5.7±6.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.3% · won 49% · +7.7±8.7 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 48% · +6.8±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 47% · +5.1±7.7 vs own baseline
  4. BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 3.2% · won 46% · +4.7±7.7 vs own baseline
  5. FH down the line → FH crosscourt used 1.2% · won 48% · +6.6±10.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Lorenzo Sonego 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 + approach used 0.2% · won 61% · +16.7±12.5 vs own baseline · +16.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 58% · +13.2±12.8 vs own baseline · +20.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 52% · +7.6±9.9 vs own baseline · +10.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 56% · +11.2±12.2 vs own baseline · +12.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Ben Shelton (7/8)
  5. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 0.3% · won 54% · +9.6±11.6 vs own baseline · +13.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. T serve → FH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.2% · won 55% · +10.2±12.3 vs own baseline · +13.4 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

T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.3186
Body 2nd serve · ad court+1.8248
Wide 1st serve · ad court+1.6823
FH slice to the middle · return+1.3200
FH to their backhand · return+1.3270

Most exposed to

BH to their forehand · return−3.0172
FH to their forehand · return−2.7271
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.1541
T 2nd serve · deuce court−1.6380
FH to their forehand · rally−1.5783

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.72, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.50, Jack Draper +1.31, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.25, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.25

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.78, Miomir Kecmanovic +0.74, Pedro Martinez +0.60, Roberto Bautista Agut +0.59, Roberto Carballes Baena +0.56

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Ugo Humbert, Karen Khachanov, Andy Murray, Joao Fonseca, Yoshihito Nishioka

Tactical fingerprint

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

Wide serves · deuce56%
Run-around forehands37%
Drop shots / shot3.7%
Forehand share61%
1st serve in66%
Backhand slice30%
Unforced errors / shot11.1%
Point-ending shots26.3%
Deep returns30%
Chipped returns18%
Through the middle26%
Points at net12%
T serves · ad39%
Serve & volley6%
BH down the line18%
Avg rally length3.7
FH down the line28%
Wide serves · ad46%
T serves · deuce32%

Plays most like

  1. Carlos Alcaraz 2019–2026 plan v
  2. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v
  3. Holger Rune 2019–2025 plan v
  4. Felix Auger Aliassime 2017–2026 plan v
  5. Zizou Bergs 2021–2026 plan v
  6. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  7. Alejandro Tabilo 2021–2026 plan v
  8. Arthur Fils 2023–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Carlos Moya 1997–2007
  2. Jim Courier 1989–1999
  3. Magnus Norman 2000–2001

Charted matches