Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 07 November 2008 /

With the start of the Shanghai Masters just a couple of days away, "Magical" Matthew Walton crunches the numbers to help us know how to approach the total games and set betting markets on Betfair.

The ATP season draws to a close in Shanghai as the curtain is brought down on what has been another great year on tour. One last opportunity to make some money? You bet!

Because, as we know, there's always an angle if only you're prepared to look hard enough. Use a bit of creative-thinking, study the facts, assess the markets and the rewards on Betfair are there to be had.

Here we've turned our attention to three of the most popular markets available on individual matches. They are the total number of games and the total number of sets for the match as well as the set betting market.

What we propose to do is challenge the perceived wisdom about these three markets when it comes to the action in Shanghai.

So what have we got in the Far East? We've got the best eight players in the world. Actually, it's eight of the top nine as Rafael Nadal has pulled out with tendonitis, the Spaniard being replaced by Gilles Simon.

Fair to say these guys are the best around (27 tournament wins between them in 2008) and they fall into the same kind of mould. They're all fighters, never-say-die competitors or, in a word, winners. If they lose the first set of a match they'll do their level best to win the second ... and the third. These guys don't throw in the towel.

Furthermore, their range of ability, being all in the top ten of the rankings, might not be uniform but it certainly falls within a distinct band. By that we mean one guy isn't going to outclass another like we see, for example, in the first round of a Grand Slam where world No.1 plays world No. 201. That 'skill differential' will be less pronounced than we see in other regular tour events.

Also, these guys know each other inside out. They have an in-depth knowledge of each other's strengths and weaknesses. Games will have to be 'won' as there will be no cheap points on offer.

As such, perceived wisdom would lead us to believe that the matches in Shanghai will be competitive, hard-fought and, on average, longer rather than shorter. You should be looking for high numbers in terms of games, three sets as opposed to two, 2-1 wins as opposed to 2-0 defeats.

Now that all sounds quite logical and perfectly acceptable, doesn't it?

But, and here's the point (the betting angle, if you like) this simply doesn't happen in this end of season tournament. Many backers, and layers for that matter, will expect long matches but the statistics say that they won't get them. Here's what we discovered by leafing through the record books ...

Going back through the last 15 years of the Masters Cup, all the way back to Frankfurt in 1993, we've studied the results of all the 225 matches played.

What we've found is that in only three years (2006, 2003 and 2002) have we seen more three set matches than two set matches - please note, each tournament is comprised of a total of 15 matches including the round robin stage, SF's and the final itself.

In 2006 there were 9 matches from a total of 15 which were decided 2-1 either way, 8 in 2003 and 9 in 2002.

In each of the other 12 years we've seen 2-0 wins, whichever way around, dominate the statistics. In 2004, every match, all 15 of them, were decided in straight sets. There were 12 in 1999, 11 in 2007 and 2001, 10 in 2000.

From a grand total of 225 matches played, there have been 84 three set matches (37.3%) and 141 two set matches (62.7%). And that's some figure when you start to work on the prices which will be available through the coming tournament.

What this data does is re-inforce a phenomenon we discussed some time ago (read full article here).

In that discussion we addressed the issue of set betting or, more to the point, the total number of sets in certain matches. The argument was, contrary to popular belief, the further we go through tournaments the average number of sets per match actually decreases as opposed to increases.

As we get to the QF's and SF's of events, as well as the final itself, we should see matches between the better players (i.e. the top eight seeds) where the 'skill differential' is less. These better seeded players should be more evenly matched, and so produce longer matches, than the earlier rounds when the disparity in rankings and ability is naturally much wider - in short, the same conditions as we see in Shanghai. But we don't see it in those examples and we don't see it here in Shanghai.

It's the same pattern being repeated but why does it happen?

In the above example it could well be that later in events players are fatigued or injured, that both players have played themselves into form and so the matches are less of a lottery (the best player wins, full stop) or we see some lucky winners from previous rounds simply out of their depth.

Why the short matches here in Shanghai? Well, we're now at the end of a long hard campaign. The big prizes have already been won, this title counts for little in the grand scheme of things and thoughts are already turning to 2009. If you're behind in a match, how much incentive is there to fight your way back? For sure, professional pride will take players so far but the fundamental motivation for this event right from the start is questionable. Add to this the dead rubbers we can find in a round-robin format (a previous weakness of the format when trialled in regular season tournaments) and you can see why guys lack their usual tenacity making games shorter rather than longer.

Therefore, don't look at this event like any other. It has peculiar form and, as such, demands a different betting approach. Ignore what you might initially think and consider this statistically proven approach when you use the Betfair markets.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: