Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 22 November 2007 /

Matthew Walton investigates the declining rate of virgin winners on the men's tour...

For the last few years the tennis world has been governed by two players. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Between them they have hoovered up 14 of the last 16 Grand Slam titles, multiple Masters Series events and a fair few regular tournaments to boot.

If either, or both, are in an event then they are the favourites and any form study begins and ends with their claims. They are the Labour and Conservative of tennis - if one isn't winning then the other one is.

However, there have been a few signs of late to suggest that this duopoly is coming to an end. Novak Djokovic, for one, has threatened their stranglehold on the top honours and the likes of Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet, David Ferrer and even the mercurial David Nalbandian could be thrown into the mix for 2008.

Such thoughts led to a study of the ATP tour in terms of new blood. Those first time winners who will become the top ten players of the future. After all, every player has to start somewhere and surely a healthy number of new winners makes for market volatility (one of our favourite things) as the old order is challenged by the new kids on the block.

So, is the ATP tour producing more or less first time winners?

Well, the strange thing is despite both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal not having their best years, 2007 has seen the fewest number of first time winners on tour for the past five years.

It's fair to say that of those first time winners Juan Monaco (3), Ivo Karlovic (3) and Gilles Simon (2) have won more than once but, never the less, the figure of five maiden tour winners for 2007 seems rather low. More so when the victory of Steve Darcis in Amersfoort seems like a compete fluke (although time will tell with the Belgian).

Looking through the record books we found 2006 generating 11, 2005 produced a respectable 8, there was a high of 13 in 2004 and even a healthy looking 9 in 2003. There were even 11 maiden winners in 2002 and so on ...

Perhaps one contributory factor was the number of multiple title winners on tour during the year - Djokovic, Malisse, Blake, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Murray, Ferrer and Robredo all claimed more than one title in 2007. Plus, of course, the usual suspects, Federer and Nadal.

For sure, the tour's strength in depth will always ebb and flow. One year we may see the top 10 ranked players winning 75% of the events, the next year is might be down to 60%. We might find 10 multiple winners one year, as with 2007, but we might only see 6 or 7 the next.

The concern for backers, or perhaps the advantage for exchange users, is that with the market seemingly focused more than ever on the top few players, the number of first time winners (and the number of multiple winners) has a knock-on effect as to market fluctuations, betting opportunities and, in in simplest form, profits!

In some respects this opens a new debate. Namely, how much adherence to the formbook do we want? If every match and every tournament went according to the script then there would be no margins to play with.

We need just enough deviation from the formbook (and, in this case, just enough first time winners) in order to keep the markets volatile and not totally predictable.

The influx of new talent into the winner's enclosure is one example of how the market can be kept vibrant but even this variable factor needs to be within reasonable parameters otherwise the process of locating winners - or laying unfancied players - becomes something of a minefield.

In terms of other factors we have discussed in previous features, the location of winners can be based upon many avenues of investigation other than current form (age, nationality, seeding, Grand Slam records etc). This 'maiden' factor, is another line of reasoning for backers to explore.

During a season with around 65 events on the calendar, the percentage of first time winners was a miserable 7% in 2007 but 20% in 2004. More valuable statistics to evaluate when you're studying the exchange markets.

So, the question remains, would you like 100% reliable form and smaller margins to work with or less dependence upon the formbook and the potential to land bigger, albeit less often, gambles? Let us know your thoughts.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: