Davis Cup Betting / Matthew Walton / 14 November 2008 / Leave a comment

They're at home, have opted to play on indoor hard-courts to nullify Spain's clay-court pedigree and won't have to face the injured Rafael Nadal. But they shouldn't be [1.3] favourites and here's why...says "Magical" Mathew Walton.

Who will be the winners of the 97th Davis Cup? Can Spain add a third title to the world crowns they won in 2000 and 2004 or will Argentina make up for their agonising loss to Russia in the final of 2006?

Well, to begin, it's certainly hard to argue these two nations don't deserve to compete for the title. Spain have the most players of any country in the world's top 100, a total of 14 (a number which they jointly share with France) from Rafael Nadal (No.1) to Daniel Gimeno-Traver (No.94). Argentina themselves have no fewer than 9 players amongst the tour's elite, Juan Martin Del Potro being the highest ranked at No.8.

Spanish players have won 16 tournaments between them in 2008, double that of the next country (again, France with 8) whilst the Argentines, in the form of Del Potro and Nalbandian, have collected a more than respectable 6 tour titles this year.

As such, several weeks ago, the fact the final was seen as a genuine pick 'em came as no real surprise. However, all of that has changed since ...

We will now head to the Estadio Islas Malvinas on November 21st with the host nation seen as very warm favourites indeed. Currently trading at around [1.30]. You may very well ask, what has caused this major shift in the market on Betfair?

Firstly, the host nation, having the choice of venue, decided to play the match indoors on a hard court. This move was purely and simply to nullify the prowess of Rafael Nadal & co. on clay. It's worth noting that the world No.1 has only a 61% success rate indoors (it's 84% outside) similarly Nadal wins 74% of his matches on hard courts ... but a huge 91% on clay. The same logic applies to the likes of Ferrer, Lopez and Verdasco who were all brought up on dirt.

The Argentines themselves are no slouches on the surface, clay that is, with it being their usual choice of court but the clear thinking behind this move was that Spain are the better clay-courters but Argentina are better when it comes to a fast indoor surface.

That being the case, the switch was a logical one to make and a move which started to swing the market in favour of the hosts.

Secondly, the hammer-blow for the Spanish and the main market mover, came soon after as Rafael Nadal pulled out of the final, along with the Masters Cup, citing tendinitis in his right knee as the problem. With a career record of 10:1 in Davis Cup singles, added to a phenomenal year on tour, this loss is impossible to under-estimate. Spain had lost their talisman and with it, most punters considered, their only hope of winning the cup.

However, before pawning the family silver to back Argentina, we'd just like to throw a few spanners into the works.

To begin with, despite both Nalbandian and Del Potro getting a lot of match practice on the hard courts of Europe over recent weeks they both are markedly less effective on this surface.

For example, Argentina's No.1 player, David Nalbandian, is 16:2 overall on clay in the Davis Cup but only 10:6 on other surfaces. Furthermore, he's 19:2 outdoors and 7:6 indoors. Surely a switch to an indoor hard court is reducing his chances of success?

His fellow countrymen Jose Acasuso and Agustin Calleri also have very moderate records away from clay - only Juan Martin Del Potro is equally adept on both surfaces but he's only played five Davis Cup matches to date. The data is hardly compelling, therefore, in his case.

It seems as though the move away from clay was possibly a tad hasty and had they known that Nadal wouldn't start, Argentina might well have stuck with the red stuff.

Secondly, following this potential 'shot in the foot' as regards the surface we've also got the head-to-head form. David Ferrer, now the Spanish No.1 as far as the Spanish team goes, leads the two main Argentine singles players in their previous meetings - David Nalbandian 6:3 and Juan Martin Del Potro 2:1.

The No.2, Fernando Verdasco, has also won his only match with David Nalbandian (he's never played Del Potro on the main tour).

Both these players will go into their matches knowing that they can, and have, beaten their opponents - which psychologically must be a great boost when facing a tough opponent in front of a hostile crowd.

Thirdly, recent history tells us that the home nation is no shoo-in to win the final. Look back over the last 10 finals and it's five wins apiece between the home and away side - Croatia (2005), Russia (2002), France (2001), Australia (1999) and Sweden (1998) all lifted the trophy on foreign soil.

Fourthly, the doubles. Spain may well have brought in Marcel Granollers, to some a very odd choice to replace Nadal, on account of his ability in this discipline. The Argentines lost the doubles in the SF with Russia as Nalbandian and Canas fell to Kunitsyn and Tursunov (hardly a fearsome pairing). Granollers won the Junior French Open doubles in 2004 and also featured in the doubles for Spain when they won the Junior Davis Cup in 2002. He may well play along with Lopez on the middle day.

Finally, the weight of expectation. Argentina have never won a Davis Cup and although the past record of players like Nalbandian is clear for all to see, the temperamental player (and Del Potro is no Tim Henman either!) can throw in the odd shocker. The nation expects ... but can the team deliver?

The simple fact of the matter is that Argentina deserve to shade favouritism on account of home advantage. However, the wholesale abandonment of the Spanish due to the withdrawal of Nadal is surely premature and the current mark of [4.2] must have appeal to true value-seekers.

There will be twists and turns for sure over the three days in River Plate. Emotions will run high. As ever, we backers must disassociate ourselves from such sentiment and study just the facts ... and they say that Spain do still have a decent chance of claiming a historic victory.