Could anybody have foreseen the victories of David Nalbandian? Well ..er .. yes!

Players Under the Microscope / Matthew Walton / 09 November 2007 / Leave a Comment

"Magical" Mathew Walton uses his stats to explain why Nalbandian's revival wasn't so unexpected

The nine events which comprise the tennis Masters Series fill the gap between the regular, run-of the-mill tour events (which make up most of the tour schedule) and the Grand Slams.

They are contested by larger fields than normal (64 or 96) and see all the fit and available players competing for some serious prize-money - and equally important ranking points.

Recently two of these events (Madrid and Paris) have seen the resurgence of David Nalbandian. Having fallen off the radar for close on 18 months, the Argentine came back with a bang to demolish a high class field, not once but twice. In doing so he collected the first Masters Series titles of his career.

Question is ... could we have seen this success coming?

The table below shows the roll of honour for the nine events which comprise the Masters Series. Viewed over the last five years it gives us a good insight into the type of player who can win such tournaments (winners in bold, runners-up in plain type).

Clearly we have to give due notice to Messrs. Federer and Nadal. The Swiss player has now won 14 Masters Series events during the last six years (3 behind the record holder, Andre Agassi) and Nadal has won 9 events - in just three years!

So then, we simply look to the winners of Grand Slams to locate the winners of Masters Series events, is that the key?

Yes, to a point. The last 45 Masters Series events listed here have seen 33 won by Grand Slam winners (73%) - Federer (13) and Nadal (9) make up the majority of those wins but Roddick (4), Agassi (2), Ferrero (2) plus Safin, Hewitt and Moya (all 1 each) complete the list.

Of the rest we see Djokovic (2), Nalbandian (2), Davydenko (2), Coria (2) plus Henman, Robredo, Berdych and Mantilla (all 1 each) making up the other dozen winners.

But those twelve players, that 27% who haven't won a Grand Slam title, is still dominated by Grand Slam finalists and SF-ists (Djokovic, Nalbandian, Coria, Davydenko, Henman and even Mantilla). In short, players with a certain amount of pedrigree.

That brings us back to David Nalbandian. Although his regular tour form has been miserable for the past 18 months or so (prior to Madrid he hadn't won since Estoril in May '05) what has he done in the Grand Slams in the same period? We know about his Wimbledon runners-up spot to Lleyton Hewitt in '02 but has he done anything else in the Slams since then?

Look at the formbook. The Argentine was a double SF-ist last year (in the Australian and French Opens) and also put in creditable efforts this year (two R4's and two R3's) - arguably as consistent form as anybody has shown in the Grand Slams outside of Federer and Nadal.

For sure, we can utilise post event rationalisation to explain everything. Every backer should have a degree from the 'University of Hindsight'. What you need to do is to learn lessons from the past and then employ them in the future.

The simple fact of the matter is that although Nalbandian was a somewhat surprising winner of these two events, he did fit the profile of previous victors. In the 45 Masters Series events held over the past five years only Tommy Robredo and Tomas Berydch (just 4%) were successful without having made at least a Grand Slam SF.

Remember these stats when the Masters Series comes around again and, don't forget, if you can see any other patterns in tournaments by all means forward your findings to the www.betting.betfair.com and we'll look into them.