RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 18 charted matches · 2016–2024

Radu Albot

Archetype: Rallies through the middle · Crosscourt backhand

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 62.3% ±2.9 raw 60.8% · tour 63.4% · 1,271 points
Return points won 38.4% ±3.0 raw 35.6% · tour 36.6% · 1,274 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 −0.18 ±0.13 better than 17% of ATP · raw −0.18
Shot selection +0.38 ±0.16 better than 85% of ATP · raw +0.39
Execution −0.85 ±0.44 better than 30% of ATP · raw −0.73
Tactical adaptability +0.10 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 18 matches
Adaptation speed ±0.00 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 2.77 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 33% 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 6,499 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Radu Albot 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 · 451 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 45.8%±5.9 47.6%
BH through the middle 23% 40.0%±7.3 43.7%
FH inside-out 9% 56.3%±10.4 51.8%
BH slice crosscourt 8% 45.5%±10.9 42.5%
FH inside-in 7% 46.9%±11.5 54.7%
BH slice through the middle 5% 37.3%±12.1 35.1%
BH down the line 5% 44.8%±12.5 46.4%
FH through the middle 2% 42.1%±14.6 45.2%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 305 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 26% 55.5%±8.2 52.7%
FH down the line 24% 46.1%±8.5 51.5%
FH through the middle 24% 47.7%±8.5 47.0%
BH crosscourt 11% 34.2%±10.5 49.1%
BH through the middle 7% 42.4%±12.7 46.8%
FH down the line + approach 4% 71.3%±13.4 70.5%

Long rally, 9+: drive to your backhand side

position worth 46% to the average player · 260 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH crosscourt 38% 39.2%±7.4 48.0%
BH through the middle 19% 41.7%±9.8 43.8%
BH slice crosscourt 15% 43.1%±10.6 42.1%
BH down the line 7% 37.6%±12.9 46.5%
FH inside-out 6% 57.0%±13.6 52.6%
BH slice through the middle 6% 39.0%±13.4 35.1%
FH inside-in 4% 60.8%±14.4 54.3%

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

position worth 44% to the average player · 243 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 45.3%±7.5 46.6%
FH through the middle 32% 45.7%±8.3 41.5%
FH down the line 20% 43.4%±9.8 44.7%
FH slice through the middle 4% 43.0%±14.9 24.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index −1 How much less varied Radu Albot's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 123 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 42% 66% ▲ 69% / 73%
Body 20% 13% 69% / 63%
T 38% 22% ▼ 68% / 75%

631 normal · 32 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 55% 38% ▼ 68% / 73%
Body 16% 20% 67% / 63%
T 29% 42% ▲ 62% / 72%

517 normal · 91 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
Wide43% 63.3%±4.5 n=285 56% ▲
Body20% 65.3%±6.2 n=131 7% ▼
T37% 59.0%±4.9 n=247 37%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.28).
Optimal mix: +0.3 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 61.6%±4.3 n=321 66% ▲
Body16% 58.6%±7.1 n=99 3% ▼
T31% 56.2%±5.5 n=188 31%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.38).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.33 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: −0.8±4.0 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. (419 repeats, 816 switches.)

Return by serve direction

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

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 29 31% −6.3±9.9
1stAd courtT 135 28% +0.1±5.8
1stAd courtWide 204 24% −2.8±4.6
1stDeuce courtBody 38 41% +4.5±9.8
1stDeuce courtT 170 24% −0.8±5.0
1stDeuce courtWide 188 25% −1.9±4.8
2ndAd courtBody 59 56% +6.6±8.7
2ndAd courtT 58 49% −0.7±8.8
2ndAd courtWide 126 48% ±0.0±6.6
2ndDeuce courtBody 86 51% +2.5±7.6
2ndDeuce courtT 119 50% −0.1±6.7
2ndDeuce courtWide 61 44% −3.7±8.6

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Radu Albot'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 2.4% · won 71% · +5.9±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. T serve (deuce court) → FH down the line used 2.6% · won 64% · −0.3±10.6 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (ad court) → FH crosscourt used 2.2% · won 64% · −1.1±11.1 vs own baseline
  4. Wide serve (ad court) → FH through the middle used 2.4% · won 63% · −1.7±10.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → FH inside-out used 2.5% · won 62% · −2.8±10.9 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, short used 5.3% · won 48% · +9.1±10.4 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 4.6% · won 48% · +8.9±10.8 vs own baseline
  3. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH through the middle, deep used 3.5% · won 46% · +7.6±11.5 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 7.1% · won 43% · +4.6±9.4 vs own baseline
  5. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 4.6% · won 42% · +3.8±10.7 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH down the line → FH inside-out used 2.1% · won 53% · +10.9±11.4 vs own baseline
  2. FH crosscourt → FH crosscourt used 4.1% · won 50% · +7.2±9.5 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH through the middle used 3.4% · won 48% · +5.6±10.1 vs own baseline
  4. FH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.9% · won 47% · +4.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  5. BH crosscourt → FH down the line used 3.2% · won 45% · +2.4±10.2 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Radu Albot 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 slice crosscourt → FH inside-out used 0.5% · won 59% · +10.2±12.7 vs own baseline · +20.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 57% · +7.8±12.8 vs own baseline · +14.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  3. FH crosscourt → FH through the middle → FH down the line used 0.5% · won 54% · +5.2±12.5 vs own baseline · +8.1 vs tour on the same sequence
  4. FH through the middle → FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 0.5% · won 54% · +5.3±12.8 vs own baseline · +15.8 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. FH inside-out → BH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 53% · +4.1±12.7 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. FH through the middle → BH crosscourt → BH crosscourt used 0.5% · won 52% · +2.8±12.5 vs own baseline · +8.3 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 backhand · rally+2.4404
FH to the middle · serve +1+1.9141
BH to their backhand · return+1.8192
FH to their forehand · serve +1+1.2176
FH to their backhand · serve +1+0.8294

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.3199
FH to the middle · return−2.0239
Wide 1st serve · ad court−0.9343
BH to their backhand · return +1−0.5120
FH to their backhand · serve +1−0.5181

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +1.44, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.30, Casper Ruud +1.18, Pedro Martinez +1.10, Daniel Evans +1.04

Favourable matchups

Miomir Kecmanovic +1.36, Fabian Marozsan +1.31, Roberto Carballes Baena +1.28, Pedro Martinez +1.19, Roberto Bautista Agut +1.13

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Luciano Darderi, Brandon Nakashima, Milos Raonic, Francisco Cerundolo, Rinky Hijikata

Tactical fingerprint

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

Forehand share60%
Run-around forehands30%
Through the middle28%
1st serve in63%
Wide serves · ad53%
Avg rally length4.1
Backhand slice23%
Deep returns28%
Points at net11%
Wide serves · deuce43%
FH down the line30%
Drop shots / shot1.4%
Chipped returns14%
Unforced errors / shot9.3%
Serve & volley2%
Point-ending shots21.3%
T serves · ad31%
T serves · deuce37%
BH down the line12%

Plays most like

  1. Tommy Robredo 2003–2022 plan v
  2. Casper Ruud 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Ilya Ivashka 2018–2023 plan v
  4. Ben Shelton 2021–2026 plan v
  5. Daniel Elahi Galan 2020–2025 plan v
  6. Marcos Giron 2018–2026 plan v
  7. Stefanos Tsitsipas 2016–2026 plan v
  8. Guy Den Ouden 2024–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Magnus Norman 2000–2001
  2. Carlos Moya 1997–2007
  3. Nicolas Massu 2000–2009

Charted matches