Tennis Betting: Why it always pays to look out for number one

Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 19 September 2008 / Leave a Comment

Punters should be aware that some tournaments have it in their DNA to produce upsets year upon year while others consistently piece the formbook back together, says Matthew Walton.

Entering the quarter-finals of last week's BCR Open in Bucharest, the highest ranked player remaining in the event was Richard Gasquet. The talented Frenchman was also the joint market leader and seemingly a 'good thing' for the title.

However, lumping on the magically gifted but (often) tragically flawed 22-year-old would have required a leap of faith beyond the tolerance level of most formbook students - ourselves included.

Why so? Well, therein lies the topic for this discussion - the often atrocious record of No.1 seeds in mediocre, run-of-the-mill tournaments.

Now, we've expressed our views on the questionable work of Seeding Committees before (click here) and punters who take their cue from these often misleading, frequently subjective and always debatable rankings are simply asking for trouble. But, time and again, we see betting markets mimic these tournament seedings - to the exclusion of almost every other rational consideration of form, draw, history, surface etc.

Well, if that's the case, do these No.1 seeds win enough of these regular tournaments to justify their lofty rankings? We set about finding out.

To begin, there is a necessity to strip away the four Grand Slam events (Melbourne, Paris, Wimbledon & New York) along with the nine Masters Series events (Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Barcelona, Hamburg, Toronto, Cincinnati, Madrid & Paris).

These events are frequently dominated by the top seeds (if not the top seed himself) and are worthy of a special study all of their own. What we want to highlight here is the fact that many of the lesser tournaments turn out to be real 'seeding lotteries'.

Whilst you commonly find the top names, and so the top seeds, winning the big events, when we go to the far-flung outposts of the ATP Tour - Casablanca, Newport, Bucharest - that trend is often best ignored.

You take the example of Bucharest and you have to go back to Francisco Clavet, the Spanish left-hander, in 1998 to find the last top seed prevailing in Romania. The same year, 1998, applies for the Heineken Open in Auckland as Marcelo Rios was the last top seed to win Down Under. That's a decade of despair for favourite backers.

Both these tournaments are comprehensively beaten by the Dutch Open in Amersfoort where Miloslav Mecir, the Slovakian of Seoul Olympics fame, took the title as No.1 seed some 21 years ago in 1987. And, in more recent history, there are plenty of events which haven't seen their top-billed player win so far in the '00's - tournaments such as Stockholm (last No.1 seed to win was 1999), Auckland (1998), Kitzbuhel & Casablanca (1994).

Mind you, all these events have to give way to the goings-on Stateside. When it comes to putting a curse on No.1 seeds it seems as though no country is quite as bad as the USA. In Memphis Michael Chang obliged as recently as 1997 but at Delray Beach and there hasn't been a single No.1 seed winner since the event began in 1993!

And how about the Campbell's Hall of Fame Tennis Championships in Newport, Rhode Island. A mere 32 years ago Vijay Amritraj won this event as the No.1 seed - and, even then, it was in a field of just 16 players with only four seeds!

But let's not get overly distracted by a 'naming and shaming' of various events. The point to grasp from these examples is that certain tournaments, year on year, produce upsets. Not always of the form but of the seedings. We've just chosen to illustrate the record of the No.1 seeds but it's a general principle which you can apply to the whole list, 1-8, of any particular competition.

It's in their profile, it's in their tournament DNA, and as punters we should be aware of this. The reasons might be many and various - time of year, location, proximity to Grand Slams, prize money, appearance money - but all can effect the quality of the field, the quality of the seeds and so the reliability of their performance. And as Betfair backers we should be mindful of this fact - slip-ups by the likes of Richard Gasquet are no flukes.

Naturally, there are two sides to every argument. For those tournaments which regularly rip up the formbook, there are those which piece it back together again.

Take the next couple of events on the ATP Tour, in Bangkok and Beijing. Back in China, so soon after the Olympics, we have an event which has to date been held just nine times. But in that time we've seen victories for five No.1 seeds (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997 & 2005) and the other four years it has been won by the No.2, No.3 and No.5 seeds with just one unseeded winner in 1996 (Greg Rusedski, who should have been seeded anyway!).

The other event, in Bangkok, is another new recruit to the scene, held just five times since 2003. Here there have been wins for the No.1 seed twice (2004 & 2005) plus the No.3, No.6 and No.8 seeds.

Both these events are very 'seed friendly'. Coming up as well we have the likes of St. Petersburg (October 20th-26th). Held since 1995, this tournament has been won by a seed in every one of its 13 years! If you're not seeded for this tournament, why show up? Or, more to the point, as Betfair backers we've only got an eight runner field to consider.

And, just to confirm the point, this season we've had a total of 53 tournaments of which the No.1 seed has been victorious on just 12 occasions (22%) and that's including the Slams and Masters Series events. Not really that high a percentage is it? The No.2 seed has actually won 13 times!

As you can see, tournaments do have their characteristics but all too often punters are either unaware of them or pay them little attention. For sure, these shouldn't be the sole determinants of your betting but they should be added to the mix, which is your general form and event study.

So look out for these No.1 seeds but also study the fate of all the seeds as these statistics do provide useful pointers for the alert exchange trader.