Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 18 April 2008 /

"Magical" Matthew Walton talks us through the value of knowing which players reach the final and close the deal, and which don't. Important knowledge to have when you're betting on tennis...

"Magical" Matthew Walton questions whether some players have what it takes to win and finds out who can stand the heat in the final analysis.
One of the best aspects of tennis is the singular, head-to-head nature of the sport.

Team sports have a whole myriad of considerations to evaluate and even some of the other so-called individual sports can be difficult to grasp. For example, in horseracing, how much is down to the horse and how much to the jockey? Same goes for Formula 1, is it the car or the driver who wins the race?

Tennis though, like golf, snooker, darts and boxing is what you might call a pure sport when it comes to form study. The process of who wins and who loses is determined by the individual participants themselves with no undue reliance on fellow team members or superior means of transportation!

The upshot is a formbook cleared of the many grey areas which we find in other sports. As a result, and as we try to argue here week after week, tennis is one of the best sports to bet on. Everything is black and white, all you need to do is to work out the form and the odds better than your fellow Betfair user ... and that's where we come in!

The table below illustrates this point as we take in the career Win-Loss record in finals of the top 100 players in the current ATP Rankings. Just how reliable are these guys when the heat is on? Furthermore, how many supposedly top players have very little experience when it comes to the business end of tournaments.

What is clear straightaway is that finals aren't 50:50 calls. We dispelled a similar myth about tie-breaks quite some time ago and the same goes here.

Six broad groups present themselves :-

The 'MENSA' Mob - these guys have the mental fortitude, added to physical ability, to win a high percentage of finals. Federer (75%), Djokovic (75%) and Nadal (74%) are gimmes but special mention must go to Davydenko, Almagro and Tursunov (all 80%).

The 'B+ Brigade' - multiple finalists with respectable strike rates. Ivo Karlovic (66%), Andy Roddick (65%), Lleyton Hewitt (64%), Thomas Johansson (64%) and Tommy Haas (59%). All are good but their record puts them as just short of real top class.

The 'Under-Achievers' - Tomas Berdych (57%), David Ferrer (55%), Andy Murray (55%), David Nalbandian (53%), Marat Safin (51%) plus Gasquet, Youzhny and Robredo (all 50%). Even guys like Blake (47%) and Canas (47%) come into this category.

The 'Must Do Better' Group - players such as Jose Acasuso (36%), Nicolas Kiefer (35%) Marcos Baghdatis (33%) and Agustin Calleri (33%) give cause for concern. These guys clearly have ability but, mentally, do they have what it takes to win regularly? No.

The 'See Me' Set - Mario Ancic (30%), Robin Soderling (28%), Filippo Volandri (25%), Mardy Fish (20%) and Jurgen Melzer (16%) are all highly disappointing. The last three might be excused but Ancic (3:7) and Soderling (2:5) have woeful records in finals.

The 'New Kids' - as you'll see, many players have very little final experience. Some are good like Philipp Kohlschreiber and Robby Ginepri (both 100%) whilst others struggle such as Vliegen, Montanes and Guccione (all 0%). Too little data means the jury is still out.

When it comes down to two men on either side of the net, you'd like to know who you can rely upon - and this table acts as a barometer for many players.

For sure, certain guys will have been a little fortunate (or unfortunate) with their opponents in these respective deciders, as such we shouldn't get too carried away with our findings.

However, making the general assumption that to get to an ATP final you have to be a pretty good player, and in that final you're likely to meet another pretty good player, it's a good test of which guys can win the big points, who can make a 50:50 match into a 60:40 one in their own favour.

In terms of betting this table has a number of important spin-offs.

Firstly, in finals themselves. It's good to know who has a track record of success (the 70% and aboves) and who are the dodge-pots (below 40%).

Secondly, in outright betting. Why take a price about, say, Mario Ancic winning an event at [4.0] (4.0) when he's about that mark just to win the final? Let alone all the matches required to even get to the decider.

Thirdly, in everyday match betting. As we said at the start, tennis is a singular pursuit. There's nobody else to hide behind, no external aids to get you out of trouble. When the going gets tough, this is the table which tells you who gets going!

Finally, it also illustrates how quickly some players jump up the rankings with little, or no, final experience. Remember, these guys are all top 100 performers. Of these 38 have never won an event and 24 have never even made a final on tour!

These findings provide further valuable assistance in our assessment of players. In these articles we're constantly looking at ways to evaluate players (and so determine the right bets and the right prices).

Use these statistics as another way to gauge whether your fancy in Monte Carlo next week has what it takes to win.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: