Australian Open Betting / Matthew Walton / 12 January 2011 /

The Australian Open may be the least revered of the four Grand Slams but it produces winners at long odds, says Matthew Walton. Which is why he's sceptical of those players at the top of the market.

A short study of the record books might suggest there's only two possible winners of the Australian Open. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

A quick glance at the betting - where both [2.98] Federer and [3.1] Nadal dominate the exchange market - could also lead one to the same conclusion. However, despite the duo enjoying such eminent positions in the market, and having shared no less than 18 of the last 20 Grand Slams between them, it would be unwise to let such hastily formed opinions determine our betting strategy for the first tennis major of the year. There's a lot more to this event than first impressions would have us believe and, as form students, we're duty bound to be wary of evidence. We need to dig a little deeper.

As such, a number of key facts about the Australian Open must be noted and accounted for prior to betting. We must remember: (1) It's played on a hard, outdoor court. (2) It's scheduled very early in the calendar. (3) Geographically it's a long way from the regular stops on the ATP Tour. (4) Climatic conditions are always a factor and it's going to be very hot. (5) It's regarded as the least important of the four Slams.

Therefore a natural, and many would say logical, preference for the market leader must be considered in light of these factors. This event does have its peculiarities and, crucially, favourites have not fared well in Melbourne over the last decade.

Since 2001 only one player, Roger Federer, has been able to justify a 'clear advantage' at the head of the exchange by going on to lift the title in Melbourne. The Swiss player has done this three times (2006, 2007 & 2010) - which in itself, given his domination of the sport in recent years, isn't that impressive seeing as he's gone off as the jolly in each of the last six years.

Also worth noting is of the three Grand Slams, away from Roland Garros, Federer has the poorest record here: four wins in Australia but five at the US Open and six at Wimbledon.

The other seven years we've seen victories for Safin (2001), Johansson (2002), Agassi (2003), an unfancied Federer (2004), Safin (2005), Djokovic (2008) and Nadal (2009). None of these players went off as the pre-tournament favourite and whilst Nadal [5.0] was hardly a huge price when he won, some of the others traded at significantly bigger odds.

Prices like Djokovic [13.0] and Safin [14.5] were both decent marks for established players, and a previous winner in the case of the Russian. Federer [7.2] was still in the ascendancy when he landed his first Australian Open and then there's the case of Thomas Johansson. Trading for the Swede, a capable but limited player, was anything you fancied over [100.0], [150.0], [200.00].

Such examples make a strong case for our scepticism but for anyone still unconvinced, a review of the placings over the past decade will surely eradicate all doubt. With guys like Clement (2001), Schuettler (2003), Baghdatis (2006), Gonzalez (2007) and Tsonga (2008) all making the final, that's 50% of the championship deciders over the past 10 years where at least one player has been traded in excess of [100.0]. Actually, the figures were well above [200.0], [300.0] and even [500.0] on occasion.

Add these examples to the above, acknowledge the fact that Johansson actually won in 2002 at a three figure price, and all of a sudden this tournament takes on an entirely different aspect.

Even if you do ultimately consider the claims of Federer and Nadal to be too strong to ignore, there's clear back-to-lay potential in a tournament of this kind. As ever with tennis betting, carefully study the draw but several players listed below merit a market check once the line up for Melbourne is confirmed.

Recommended 'back-to-lay' bets:

Andy Roddick [70.0]
Marin Cilic [180.0]
Mikhail Youzhny [480.0]

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: