Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 31 October 2008 /

Tennis, says Matthew Walton, pitches old against young and power against poise and the recent match between David Nalbandian and Juan Martin Del Potro presented punters with an age-old dilemma.

David Nalbandian recently defeated Juan Martin Del Potro in Round 3 of the Paris Masters. So what? I hear you ask.

Well, the match was priced up on Betfair at [1.58] Del Potro and [2.70] Nalbandian just before Del Potro sent down his first serve on Thursday at 10.12am in the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy.

However, within 28 minutes, Nalbandian was the [1.68] favourite and heading for an emphatic 6-4 6-0 victory ... and you should have been on him.

Here's why.

Juan Martin Del Potro is, along with Andy Murray, the flavour of the month on the ATP Tour. These two guys are the most improved players on tour in 2008 and for all our fawning over Murray's recent, laudable efforts (five titles in 2008, US Open final, back-to-back Masters Series titles, back-to-back tour titles - the first Brit since Mark Cox in 1975 to do so) for all this, Del Potro has achieved great success himself.

He became the first player ever to win his first four ATP tournaments in consecutive events as he won in Stuttgart and Kitzbuhel on clay before jumping on a plane and winning in Los Angeles and Washington on hard courts. No mean feat for the 20-year-old-Argentine. His form over the last four months has been superb - more so when you add in a SF in s'Hertogenbosch, QF in the US Open and RU in Tokyo. All since the end of June.

But for all that, he was facing David Nalbandian. One of the world's top ten players, if not in terms of trophies then certainly talent - Nalbandian's total of 9 career titles is extremely modest when compared to his contemporaries.

Let's not forget as well that the 26-year-old from Cordoba was the defending champion in Paris (and so trying to save a lot of ranking points), had recently won a tournament in Stockholm and needed to win this match to further his chances of making the Masters Cup in Shanghai.

What you have is two in-form players in direct competition, closely pitted in the world rankings (Nalbandian is 8th in the world, Del Potro 9th for 2008) with head-to-head form - although Nalbandian leads their series 2:1, the last two meetings came in the two weeks prior to the Paris match, Del Potro won 6-4 6-2 in Madrid and Nalbandian won 6-4 6-4 in Basel. They even train together being part of the same national Davis Cup team.

Why, therefore, did we see Betfair prices of such disparity? Many, many backers obviously saw a sound logical basis to make Del Potro a warm odds-on favourite ... but we didn't.

We're fundamentally considering one of the classic punting puzzles which backers have to solve time after time, whether it be tennis, boxing, snooker, darts or any one-on-one sport.

Do you go for emerging or exposed talent? Do you back potential or proven ability? Or, in the case of this all-Argentine affair between old and young, do you go for the sorcerer or his apprentice?

But as we all know, with this kind of scenario or, for that matter, with any bet which we strike in any market, we have to have that one thing which all bets must contain ... value.

We go back to the match in question. For all those who say Del Potro was the more likely winner of the match (almost twice as likely, according to the odds), and point to all manner of reasons why, they must still come up short when the point is made as to whether [1.58] could be seen as real 'value'.

Go back through the form of the last 12 months, look at the world rankings, consider the bigger picture in terms of the Masters Cup, think of the fact that Nalbandian beat del Potro just five days prior to this match - still stand by the view that your bet is value?

The adage of 'form is temporary but class is permanent' is probably over-stating the case but there's no way that Nalbandian should have been so readily dismissed by backers. And those who did paid a heavy price as the 'old stager' went from [2.70] to [1.68] in barely half-an-hour's play and having won the first set 6-4 his price hit [1.18]. A break early in the second set, en route to a 6-0 whitewash, and the game was over.

That tipping point in player's careers, as one gradually overtakes another, is a very difficult one to call. It certainly is in this particular example. But, and here's the key, the prices available should lead you - as a thoughtful and studious backer - to an obvious decision of who is the better bet. The odds in this match would have us believe that Del Potro was already the better player, the finished article ... the winner. Was he?

Had the prices been the other way around it would have made more sense. The 20-year-old is still learning his trade, still improving etc. But to make Del Potro the favourite it's harder, if not impossible, to justify.

One of the great attractions of tennis betting is the one-to-one nature of competition. It's a sport which pitches old against young, power against poise, talented against not-so-talented. We, as backers, then have to make value judgements on who to back given these considerations but also given the odds on offer.

This match perfectly illustrates this point. Whatever the situation, are you really getting value with your bet? It's all very well backing on the basis of perceived improvement or suspected decline - we all do that - but when we do, we must ensure that the price is right.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Del Potro will supercede Nalbandian one day ... but he hasn't done so yet.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: