RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2006–2019

Nicolas Almagro

Archetype: Ad-court T server · Two-fisted driver

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 64.7% ±2.9 raw 60.9% · tour 63.4% · 1,626 points
Return points won 33.5% ±2.9 raw 32.0% · tour 36.6% · 1,503 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 +0.12 ±0.06 better than 84% of ATP · raw +0.12
Shot selection +0.19 ±0.11 better than 72% of ATP · raw +0.19
Execution −0.16 ±0.52 better than 59% of ATP · raw −0.18
Tactical adaptability +0.22 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed +0.04 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.18 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 94% 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 8,787 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Nicolas Almagro 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 · 711 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 45% 49.4%±4.5 47.6%
BH through the middle 21% 41.8%±6.3 43.7%
BH down the line 12% 43.1%±8.0 46.4%
FH inside-out 8% 38.4%±9.0 51.8%
FH inside-in 6% 48.2%±10.6 54.7%
BH slice crosscourt 3% 38.4%±12.2 42.5%
BH slice through the middle 3% 24.5%±11.0 35.1%
BH slice down the line 1% 38.0%±14.6 37.1%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 480 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 48% 45.5%±5.2 46.6%
FH down the line 35% 37.4%±5.8 44.7%
FH through the middle 14% 36.3%±8.4 41.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 457 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 41% 41.4%±5.6 48.0%
BH through the middle 25% 43.2%±7.0 43.8%
BH down the line 14% 48.0%±8.9 46.5%
FH inside-out 6% 55.3%±11.8 52.6%
FH inside-in 4% 60.1%±13.1 54.3%
BH slice crosscourt 4% 41.7%±13.3 42.1%
BH slice through the middle 4% 29.8%±12.4 35.1%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 428 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 32% 54.8%±6.6 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 47.5%±7.9 51.5%
BH crosscourt 17% 38.9%±8.4 49.1%
BH through the middle 15% 45.1%±8.9 46.8%
FH through the middle 10% 33.4%±9.9 47.0%
BH down the line 4% 40.7%±13.5 48.3%
FH down the line + approach 2% 70.3%±13.7 70.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +3 How much less varied Nicolas Almagro's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 148 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 38% 34% 71% / 73%
Body 5% 13% 63% / 63%
T 57% 53% 80% / 75%

802 normal · 32 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 46% 53% 74% / 73%
Body 12% 9% 55% / 63%
T 41% 38% 69% / 72%

649 normal · 116 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
Wide38% 60.9%±4.3 n=317 30% ▼
Body5% 63.2%±9.2 n=45 0% ▼
T57% 63.3%±3.5 n=472 70% ▲

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.73).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide47% 61.3%±4.0 n=362 60% ▲
Body12% 52.5%±7.5 n=91 0% ▼
T41% 58.5%±4.4 n=312 40%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.14).
Optimal mix: +0.6 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.46 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: +3.1±2.8 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. (728 repeats, 835 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 28 36% −0.6±10.4
1stAd courtT 174 20% −7.7±4.6
1stAd courtWide 239 26% −1.1±4.4
1stDeuce courtBody 56 31% −5.3±8.2
1stDeuce courtT 236 22% −2.7±4.2
1stDeuce courtWide 186 22% −5.4±4.6
2ndAd courtBody 79 48% −1.8±7.9
2ndAd courtT 20 44% −5.7±11.5
2ndAd courtWide 158 52% +4.0±6.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 155 45% −4.3±6.0
2ndDeuce courtT 108 46% −3.4±7.0
2ndDeuce courtWide 34 49% +1.0±10.3

Signature patterns

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

Serve → +1

  1. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.8% · won 65% · +1.2±8.6 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → BH crosscourt used 2.6% · won 61% · −2.8±9.9 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.2% · won 60% · −3.4±10.4 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 3.1% · won 60% · −3.1±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. T serve (ad court) → FH down the line used 2.3% · won 60% · −3.7±10.2 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 4.7% · won 44% · +10.1±9.6 vs own baseline
  2. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.7% · won 39% · +5.5±7.9 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.4% · won 40% · +6.1±9.7 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, deep used 2.4% · won 41% · +7.7±11.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH down the line, mid used 3.2% · won 38% · +4.4±10.5 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 6.0% · won 55% · +10.4±6.6 vs own baseline
  2. BH through the middle → BH crosscourt used 3.4% · won 51% · +7.1±8.3 vs own baseline
  3. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 2.0% · won 53% · +9.1±9.9 vs own baseline
  4. FH down the line → FH inside-in used 1.1% · won 52% · +7.3±11.5 vs own baseline
  5. BH through the middle → BH through the middle used 2.5% · won 48% · +3.5±9.3 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

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

  1. BH through the middle → FH down the line → BH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 55% · +10.3±10.5 vs own baseline · +16.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by David Ferrer (5/11), Novak Djokovic (5/8)
  2. FH down the line → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 1.1% · won 53% · +7.8±9.3 vs own baseline · +7.7 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (1/6), Gilles Simon (3/8)
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH down the line used 0.3% · won 57% · +11.6±12.7 vs own baseline · +21.5 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. BH crosscourt → BH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.6% · won 53% · +8.1±11.1 vs own baseline · +8.6 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Novak Djokovic (2/6), David Ferrer (6/8)
  5. Wide serve → BH through the middle return, mid → FH crosscourt used 0.4% · won 55% · +10.3±12.6 vs own baseline · +11.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH crosscourt → BH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 0.7% · won 51% · +6.2±10.9 vs own baseline · +7.8 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+2.2193
T 2nd serve · deuce court+2.1194
BH to their backhand · return+1.9200
FH to their backhand · serve +1+1.1292
T 1st serve · deuce court+1.1472

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · return +1−2.3175
BH to their backhand · rally−2.2648
FH to their forehand · serve +1−2.2251
FH to their backhand · rally−2.0563
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.7335

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Sebastian Baez, Jaume Munar, Miomir Kecmanovic, Jan Lennard Struff, Tomas Martin Etcheverry

Tactical fingerprint

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

T serves · deuce57%
Avg rally length4.5
Deep returns30%
Forehand share55%
T serves · ad41%
Unforced errors / shot10.5%
Run-around forehands20%
FH down the line31%
Point-ending shots23.2%
Drop shots / shot1.2%
Wide serves · ad47%
Serve & volley0%
Through the middle22%
BH down the line17%
Chipped returns7%
Backhand slice10%
Points at net7%
Wide serves · deuce38%
1st serve in56%

Plays most like

  1. Borna Coric 2015–2025 plan v
  2. David Goffin 2013–2025 plan v
  3. Marat Safin 1998–2009 plan v
  4. Aljaz Bedene 2014–2019 plan v
  5. Jared Donaldson 2014–2019 plan v
  6. Jack Draper 2022–2026 plan v
  7. Juan Pablo Varillas 2021–2025 plan v
  8. Kyle Edmund 2016–2023 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Michael Chang 1989–1998
  2. Thomas Enqvist 1993–2001
  3. Wayne Ferreira 1992–2003

Charted matches