Tennis Betfacts / Matthew Walton / 21 January 2009 /

The early rounds of the Australian Open may give the impression that the Big Four repeatedly win in straight sets but when Matthew Walton studied their results in Grand Slams over the last two years he made some surprising discoveries...

As many would have expected, the 'Big Four' won their first round matches in Melbourne without so much as breaking into a sweat.

Roger Federer lost just 12 games in defeating Andreas Seppi in typically clinical style. Novak Djokovic gave up only 10 games when downing Andrea Stoppini in another ultra-efficient performance. Rafael Nadal then annihilated Christophe Rochus in just 67 minutes for the loss of a mere 4 games!

Even the abbreviated performance of Andy Murray was no less dominant as he had Andrei Pavel staring right down the barrel before the Romanian player retired from their overwhelmingly one-sided encounter.

All of this, added to the stellar form of this quartet over the past year, has prompted many backers to lump on these guys - almost blindly - whenever they step out on court.

Trouble is, the win markets for the likes of Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal are all trading at around [1.03] in favour of these guys being victorious - even before a ball is hit in anger - and making good money, at these kind of prices, is pretty hard going.

Hence, the next best strategy is to use a bit of lateral-thinking (something which we are always advocating in these articles) and move onto the set betting markets - still backing these guys to do exactly what they generally do but at a better price.

Backing the 3-0 scoreline might well be upwards of [1.25], [1.33] or even [1.50] - not huge prices in themselves but certainly more appealing propositions than those related to the outright win markets.

However, the presumption is that these top players win their matches in straight sets time after time after time ... and that might well be the first impression based upon their respective all-conquering exploits in the first round at Melbourne. And the subsequent wins of Federer and Djokovic etc in round two.

But is it always the case? We set about finding the value in correct score betting.

We're dealing exclusively with the Slams here. The reason being, the best-of-five format offers more possible outcomes and so bigger prices (study best-of-three encounters and you won't get much bigger than the [1.03] in the win market for a 2-0 result). Also we'll just look at these four players - Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal - as this is where you'll find the bulk of the interest, and so liquidity, over the next few days Down Under.

We studied the results of these four players in the four Grand Slams over the last couple of years, eight tournaments in all, focussing on round two, three and four (just after the easy opener and just before the tough QF's).

Here's what we discovered ... and you'll be surprised.

Between these four players - covering Round 2, 3 and 4 of the eight Grand Slams of 2007 and 2008 - they have competed in a total of 80 matches.

Of those 80 matches, how many have been won in straight sets, giving you a nice payout on your 3-0 correct score bet?

Take a guess. A total of 50 might seem a reasonable estimate. Given their exceptional form of the first round you could even argue that 60, or more, wouldn't be totally out of the question.

Because, let's remember in a Slam, with the seedings as they are, these top four players can't face a seed in Round 2, they might only face one from the top 32 in Round 3 and then perhaps one from the top 16 (but not the top 8) in Round 4. That's hardly a severe schedule over the three matches.

No. The actual number of 3-0 wins in these Slams is a modest 49 out of 80 matches.

Turn that into a percentage and it's 61%. Turn that percentage into a price and it's [1.63]. That, statistically speaking, is the true price for a 3-0 win by one of these top four players in round two, three or four of any particular Grand Slam.

Now if you take, as an example, their second round matches in Australia, the prices of Nadal to win 3-0 against Karanusic was [1.12], Murray against Granollers was [1.22], Federer against Korolev [1.32] and Djokovic against Chardy was [1.64].

Seem like value to you? Djokovic possibly but not really the rest.

If you want, we can even break it down to each individual event. In this tournament, the Australian Open, in 2007 and 2008 these g uys played a combined total of 20 matches in these three rounds and won 14 of them in straight sets. That's 70% or odds of [1.42].

In the French Open it's 16 wins from 20 matches or 80% - that makes for odds of [1.25]. That's much nearer the mark and we'll talk more about this come June!

However ... at Wimbledon nine out of 18 matches and at the US Open just 10 of 22 matches over the two year period. That makes for percentages of 50% and 45% respectively or true odds of [2.00] and [2.22].

So, as you can see, the 3-0 scoreline isn't exactly brimming with value. Yes, as the rounds progress, and the competition gets better, the margin will close and the value will increase but the plain fact of the matter is that backing the whitewash isn't necessarily the way to go. You'd actually make more money by being a layer of this market.

As for the players themselves, Federer is the best to back to win 3-0 (19 times in 23 matches), Nadal is next best (15 of 22), then Djokovic (10 of 22) and finally there is Murray (5 of 13).

The point may very well be that those traders who look to the correct score betting as a means of improving their returns are, more than likely, thinking along the right lines ... however, they might just have come to a premature conclusion.

It's often the case, given the opponent and the event in question, that the 3-1 scoreline becomes the true value option. Just think of the lottery of tie-breaks, the odd lapse in concentration or the occasional double-fault. That might very well turn a [1.25] loser into a [5.5] winner - and which would you rather be on?

Do, therefore, use the Betfair markets to play on the correct score betting. They are an excellent source of value.

Just make sure you don't fall into the trap of thinking a good thing in the win market means a certainty in the set betting. It isn't always the case.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: