Tennis - 2015 Wimbledon

BetCrimes1984

BetCrimes1984

CTG Big Brother
Been away, hope to make more than sparodic appearances before this tourney enters its crunch phase. Will use this thread for any pre-match thoughts & bets.

-----------

Pissed I missed the betting on early exits of Ivanobitch & Suarez-Navarro (who's prior good season I guessed would be overrated on grass), but for now have settled on Muguruza to win the 3rd quarter at +1600:

2R - Lucic-Baroni (has made the 3R in only 3 of her last 21 consecutive Slam appearances)
3R - Kerber (made the SF before)
4R - Wozniacki (never past the 4R in 8 previous tries)
QF - Lisicki (made the F before) or Kuznetsova (hasn't been past the 4R since 07) or Bacsinszky (never past the 2R in 5 previous tries)

As much as she's yet to prove herself on grass, I can't ignore these odds considering neither Lucic-Baroni, Wozniacki, Kuznetsova or Bacsinszky have the weapons to beat her my pov, which means the only 2 matches I can see which wouldn't be decided on her racquet alone would be against Lisicki & Kerber. And since it's more than obvious that there's still a question mark over Lisicki's mentality at this tourney (her loss to Halep last year was just as bad as her loss to Bartoli the year before), this bet might simply come down to Mugu needing only to beat one significant opponent, and that's what makes it attractive to me despite the question mark that still exists for her on this surface.
 
Last edited:
Day of reckoning for my bet.


Muguruza
Muguruza so far and she's really only shown her best in 1 & 3/4 sets (both vs. Kerber: the 3rd set & in the 1st after going down 0-3, 0-40). Despite knocking off Wozniacki via a realitively calm looking scoreline, she hit a plethora of BH UE that she won't get away with here. Still, what got her by Woz in large part was fanastic serving and clean hit winners which, if reproduced here should be too much for the Swiss on this surface. My concerns for the Spaniard here run to her lack of consistency in runs of Slam matches, and not much else (she might have a few nerves in the face of the prospect of making her first SLam SF, but I don't believe she's the type to mentally meltdown/hand a match to her opp. simply because of the stage she's on). She tended to force things at time against Woz, blowing a ton of bp chances, and I think that was a result of her game simply not naturally flowing like it did against Kerber (after her slow start), leading to her to actuively try and refind it rather than let things come to her. The type of mental shit top players learn with getting experience under their belt.

Bacsinszky
There's a Britsh female commentator I usually find when getting links for Slam matches (esp. Wimby) who provides great insight from my pov as a former player (don't know her name). During Timea's match vs. Lisicki, this woman noted that despite the scoreline Bacs was not at her best until the very end of the match (she put it down to nerves). It's a case of looking at that scoreline and realising Lisicki once again just gave it away w/some horrible play, rather than taking from that scoreline that Bacs played exceptionally well on this surface against the player with, prior to their match, the 3rd best record at Wimby the last handful of years (25-5, bettered only by Serena & Kvitova). Her troubles with Niculescu align themselves with this take, because the Romanian's dominant effort really died after losing the 2nd set 7-5. One can imagine her telling herself just hold serve and the match will be right there for the taking in the tiebreak. Instead she got broken in that 12th game and typically for an outsider facing making it deep into a Slam she mentally go into a spin. Essentially, her last 2 opponents have gone a long way to beating themselves, and I can't see Muguruza handing her a similar gift here. However Timea's best certainly can overcome the Spaniard delivering the same kind of at times indifferent/patchy effort seen vs. Wozniacki.


For the neutral, I don't see Mugu being worth the odds she's currently showing SU. The Spaniard's game is still growing on grass, as well as she's still learning how to harness her talent on the Slam stage generally. However, if she shows the form she did vs. Kerber (both here & at the FO, and also vs. Safarova in that 1st set at the French - the best set of tennis I've seen in the WTA this year) then the match will be decided on her racquet. That combined with Timea's clearly prefering the other 3 Slam surfaces before grass would put me off taking a flyer on the Swiss if I had no previous interests in this match.

However, Mugu after winning each of her 1st sets has started every 2nd set very slowly (was down 1-5 to L-Baroni, lost 1-6 to Kerber & was down 0-2 to Woz). I'd be looking to bet this to be 3 sets/Over if I had no prior interests. It seems to me she's used her "free" set after winning the 1st as a way to recover from the effort it's taken out of her to win the 1st. Woz & L-B just weren't strong enough to make her completely pay for it, whereas Kerber was. I'd think the Swiss has shown enough to be worth thinking she at least wins a set here, even if she loses the 1st.


Of note: Mugu beat Bacsinszky at the Aussie Open earlier this year (6-3 4-6 6-0), but that was on a surface both players would prefer over this one.
 
My take on the Muguruza/Radwanska semi-final -

Recent grass form
Radwanska: Played the Nottingham and then Eastbourne grass tournies as her lead-in to Wimby, going 7-2 SU (a SF loss to Niculescu & a F loss to Bencic; both of those players having good runs @Wimby themselves). So, incl. Wimby, she's gone 12-2 SU on grass in '15 (8-4 combined for '13/'14). However, of those 12 players she's beaten I only find myself being impressed with 1 result, her 2 & 1 win over Karolina Pliskova @Eastbourne (I saw Pliskova play extremely well at Birmingham where she lost a tough final vs. Kerber, so she was in excellent form prior to playing Raddy). She's had other wins against some name players, but none (Stephens, Keys, Jankovic, Pironkova) lack signficant question marks hanging over their heads.

Muguruza: In the Spaniard's own 2 lead-in tournies to Wimby, she lost in the 1R @Birmingham (opp. WR 65th) & then lost in the 2R @Eastbourne (opp. WR 126th). Hardly inspiring stuff. From there, life gave her a toughish Wimby draw. 1R vs. Lepchenko (someone who has tended to play higher ranked players tough as often as not in recent times, barring Serena. Her downfall seems to be inconsistency vs. lesser players); 2R vs. Lucic-Baroni (knocked previous year's finalist Halep out of the FO, then took Cornet to the brink the next round. If nothing else, she brought confidence into their 2R match, reflected in her 2nd set play); 3R vs. Kerber (a repeat of her 3R win at the FO; the German has been in excellent form for quite awhile); 4R vs. Woz (yeah, she sucks on grass but was still 6-0 in completed grass lead-in matches before facing Mugu, and a 30-12 season record); 5R vs. Bacsinszky (one of the season's strongest performers, took Serena to the brink at the FO before folding. Only the 6th player to beat Lisicki over the German's L31 matches @Wimby).

Historical Wimbledon form
Radwanska: Has of course made 2 SF & a F before. However looking at the string of matches she got to play those years, again it's a repeat of what's happened this year in so far as she was the beneficiary of either numerous higher seeds getting knocked out of her way by other players (namely in '12: Lisicki got knocked out by Kerber in the QF; Lisicki in turn knocked out 1 seed Sharapova in the 4R. Either player would've given Rads far more to handle than the still then novice Kerber) or simply getting a favourable draw (as in '13: the toughest opponent she faced prior to playing Lisicki, Li Na, happened to be playing on what proved to be easily her worst Slam surface).

Muguruza: Prior to this Wimby had done nothing here: 2R & 1R exits the last 2 years.

There's little comparison regarding who has fared better on this surface in the past, or in the present season prior to Wimby starting.

Head-to-Head record
These two have fashioned a 2-2 HtH record, but it's the nature of that record that leads into my take on this coming match. Rads won their first 2 encounters (in '12 & '14). Muguruza has won their last 2 (both in '15). As time has passed and the Spaniard's game grown/matured, Rads chances of beating her opponent have progressively waned. In each of their first 3 matches, Rads won at least 12 games. In their latest meeting, she managed only half that total. There's one warning sign of the Spaniard's improvements.


An opponent comparison: Muguruza's last 3 victims - Kerber, Wozniacki & Bacsinszky - have all easily won their last meeting with Radwanska. While Kerber's took place in '13 (6-2 6-2), both Bacs (6-1 6-1) & Wozniacki (6-3 6-2) beat her this year. My point here being, all 3 of those players wheel out games that are similar in philosophy to Radwanska's: they're all brickwallers of some fashion. Bacsinszky & Kerber add in a significant bit more of aggressiveness to their executions of that philosophy than what Wozniacki & Radwanska do, but they're all still leopards sporting the same kinds of spots. Despite her current deficiencies, Muguruza isn't proving to be bothered by brickwallers/being forced to play that extra shot. Rads certainly isn't going to overpower the Spaniard or wear her down (in her 3R match vs. Kerber, it was the Spaniard who wore the brickwalling German down, with the latter sweating like a pig & with hands on knees early in the 3rd set). Her draw has prepared her perfectly to meet the likes of what Radwanska has to bring to bear here. I see the recent & distant past playing too much of a role in these odds. As Mugu gets better & learns on the job before our eyes, she's nullifying the advantage that Radwanska's experience would otherwise give her. Remember, Rads served for the match against Lisicki in '13, and she faltered. Lisicki is a head case, Muguruza is not.

My final thought: Muguruza beat Serena 6-2 6-2 in last year's FO. In their very next meeting - the at AO earlier this year - she again won the 1st set 6-2. Serena had no reason not to know what her opponent held for her heading into that AO match (where that might be an excuse for her FO loss, given they'd only had 1 prior meeting before that match & Serena wasn't tested), yet the Spaniard played at such a level that Serena said afterward she wasn't playing poorly, there was simply nothing she could do to stop her opponent (in the end, I believe what cost her was the fact that prior to that 4R match she had played 3 setters in the 2 previous rounds = she ran out of gas as the match wore on). Mugu having the game to match Serena screams to me that she's a career multi-Slam winner in the waiting. Rads has the game to get past talented players who help her by beating themselves (hello, Madison Keys), but despite this being Mugu's first Slam SF I don't believe we'll see her obliging the Pole in the way Lisicki obliged Bartoli 2 years back (if anything, she might start slow due to the newness of the stage, similar to her slow start vs. Kerber: that didn't stop her winning the 1st set in the latter instance, though). Which means the Pole will have to beat her off her own racquet: as long as Mugu avoids the patchiness she showed against Woz, and sticks to the 1st set form she showed vs. Kerber (excepting the first few games, of course) & Bacsinszky, I don't see it, so for me a SU bet places itself.

Because of the Spaniard's consistent dipping in form to start her 2nd sets after winning the 1st (which goes back to mental-consistency issues), I can see Rads taking a set. Where Bacsinszky & Woz failed to capitalise but Kerber & Lucic-Baroni did not, it's a lottery to guess which side Rads falls on should she in fact lose the 1st.
 
Last edited:
nice one BC, I really do think Mugu is primed to make huge gains very soon. This might be one of her best opportunities
 
"in the way Lisicki obliged Bartoli 2 years back"

That post ticks me..... idk if you recall my future on lisicki that I didn't hedge :enraged:
 
As I see it, we have 2 realities aligning themselves for this Murray/Federer SF.

(reality #1) The Fed is past it + (reality #2) Murray is back on track after a poor 2014.

Examining (#1):

The barefaced facts regarding the assertion Roger is past it: Roger's breakthrough year was 2004 (3 Slam wins out of 4 played that year, after managing 1 Slam win in his previous of 18 Slam appearances). Looking at his record both in Slam matches overall and, in brackets, his record in SF matches specifically, at 3 year intervals since (& incl.) that breakthrough year...

2004-05-06: 73-4 (9-2)
2007-08-09: 76-6 (11-1)
2010-11-12: 59-10 (3-5)
2013-14-15: 43-10 (1-3)

The most radical expression of Roger's significant falling away in Slam form can be seen via his SF results. Doing away with the neatness of these 3 yearly intervals, if we use the 2010 AO as our line in the sand, things become even more marked: Up to & incl. that AO, Roger's record in Slam SF matches was 22-3. Since then he's gone 3-8.


Roger's 3 wins
- 2 of those wins came against the Joker, at the FO in 2011 & Wimbledon in 2012. The relevance of those 2 Slams? They just happened to occur on the Joker's worst Slam surfaces to that point in time: in a combined 16 FO & Wimby appearances until the end of 2012, Nole only managed to make 2 finals (1 in each Slam). Since the beginning of 2013, Nole has played in 4 of the 5 combined finals of those Slams. Roger managed to meet him at these venues in these SF right on the cusp of his breaking through the hoodoo these surfaces had previously had for him.

- Roger's other SF win came against Milos Raonic in 2014 at Wimbledon = yeah, freebie city. How pitiful was Roanic's effort? He's the only one of the Fed's 11 SF opponents here to have failed to win a set.

Roger's 8 losses
These results in their mown way also betray had badly Roger's form has fallen away from it's heyday. Of these 8 losses, those furtherest away from the present (meaning they concern a Roger nearest to his best ever form) came against the likes of the Joker during his breakthrough years on his best SLam surfaces ('10 USO, '11 AO & USO) & Nadal during his prime ('10 AO). Next we get the first warning sign of Roger's waning form (losing to the Joker at the FO, as already noted hardly the Serb's favourite surface), and then we're into the full blown negative results: a loss to Murray in the '13 AO where previously the Fed had killed the Scot in their Slam meetings up to that point; a loss to also waning Nadal at the '14 AO (this will almost without a doubt be recorded as Nadal's last ever HC Slam final appearance, and what a horrible loss it was considering his opponent was playing in his own first ever Slam final: so much for GOAT status for the Spaniard); and lastly and most recently - and the most damning result of all - a loss to Cilic in the '14 USO, prior to which the Croatian was 0-5 all time vs. Roger (he won as many sets in that SF as he'd managed to win in total over those previous 5 encounters). The Swiss maestro didn't just lose, but couldn't even manage to win any more than 4 games in any set, against a player making only just his second Slam SF appearance, but his first in 5 years & his first at the USO (conversely, Roger was playing his 9th SF in his last 11 USO appearances).

In these 8 losses, Roger has won 9 sets while losing 24. However, 6 of those 9 sets have required Roger to win at least 7 games in order to win them (66.6% of his total set wins), whereas his opponents have been forced to win a 7th game win in order to take a set only 6 times (25.0% of their total set wins). These figures are at their worst when we consider his most recent SF losses (the 3 since the start of '13): His only 2 set wins both required a tiebreak, where concerning of his opponents 9 set wins, only 1 required the taking of a 7th game (Nadal w/a tiebreak win, '14 AO). In other words, of the 21 sets that were won by reaching 6 games, Roger accounts for only 3 of them (14.3%). If you think Roger wins the 1st set in this coming SF, don't back the SU option, just take the better odds of a 7-6 exact score. Odds are one will rely on the other to cash.

One final way to express how far Roger's form has fallen: From Wimbledon 2004 until Wimbledon 2012 (his last Slam win), Roger appeared in all 33 Slams played, making the SF 29 times (a 87.9% rate). Since that last Slam win, Roger has made the SF in just 5 of 12 Slams played (incl. this current Wimbledon), a meagre rate of 41.7% = less than half that of his golden years.


Still, someone might say he's made the SF now, so his previous failures & struggles to do so since his last Slam win mean little. When Roger bowed out of the AO in the 3R earlier this year, there was a discussion about whether he was done and more than 1 of us put forward the opinion that the only way he'd go deep again was to get a kind draw/have other top seeds upset before he was scheduled to come across them. That didn't pan out at the recent FO where, despite having no real previous FO form, Stanimal did have the confidence of a Slam title under his belt to help propel him past the 'past-it. Fed pretty easily (straight sets; only the 3rd close, a tb). But that is what's happened at this current Wimbledon has been a combination of Roger getting a kind draw & having others do his dirty work for him when needed. There was no one of note in his 8th section of the draw (the first 4 rounds: the highest seed he was likely to face before the QF - 15th Lopez - got knocked out in the 2R). The highest seed from the 7th section that he was scheduled to meet at the QF stage - 6th Birdshit - got dumped by a fellow with no grass history at all (Simon: a guy who'd saved his better efforts for HC Slams, best expressed in the following stat: he'd had 5 x 1R exits in 19 combined FO & Wim. appearances, compared to 1 x 1R exit in 17 combined AO & USO appearances), who unsurprisingly got beaten rather easily by Roger.

If at this point we skip back in time and look at the only Slam SF Roger has won ('14 Wimby) since his last Slam win ('12 Wimby), we find he had a similarly beneficial draw all the way up to the final -
1R - Lorenzi
2R - Muller (qualifier)
3R - Giraldo
4R - Robredo (23rd seed)
QF - Stanimal (5th seed)
SF - Raonic (8th seed)

The only player worth mentioning is Stanimal, of which there are two things to note: (1) Stan still has never made a Wimbledon SF - with his recent FO win, grass is now unequivically to be acknowledged as his worst Slam surface, and (2) that was the year Stan won the AO: his Slam results for the rest of that year seemed to suffer for his coming off that breakthrough high under the Aussie sun. He lost in the 1R at the FO, and lost to a grinder (Nishikori) at the USO (a HC, still Stan's best Slam surface).

[While on the subject of this particular Wimbledon, it might pay to deal with the final result since, as it is a recent result, I've little doubt some people will draw inspiration from it for betting Roger against Murray given in the fact that Roger pushed Djokovic to a 5th set. First, Joker lost the 4th set 5-7. In the 3 previous sets they'd played 2 tb (Nole won his 7-4; Roger won his 9-7) with Nole winning the most recent (3rd set). Had Nole held serve that 12th game, that match imo probably would've ended in 4. As it stands, Nole won the 5th comfortably enough (6-4, never broken). Roger did not win a set in that match that didn't require him to win a 7th game (which goes back to the stats posted earlier), whereas of Nole's 3 sets won only 1 required a 7th game won. This on a surface that's meant to be Roger's best vs. hardly the Joker's best. When Murray beat Djokovic in the '13 final, for all intents & purposes the match simply wasn't close (Nole couldn't even force a single tb, let alone win a set: only the mountain of history in Murray's way made it seem more exciting than it actually was).]


In my book, the Fed is past it. Here he's beaten no one for a dream run to the SF stage. As I see it once again the books will more than likely claw back more on Roger re all that they had to pay out on him during his glory years. His GOAT status will suck in bets where his actual recent history - no Slam wins over 11 straight Slams for the first time since 2000-03, and a pitiful 1-3 SF record since before the start of 2013 - will pass their minds right by. But of course it takes two to tango, and no doubt Murray hate will play just a significant role in decisions to place Fed bets.

-----

Examining (#2):

Murray had a down year in 2014. He went 55-18 (75.3 win %) hardly horrible by any means, but that's still what it was (a combination of injury and simply running out of steam after his long 2012-13 form run of making the '12 Wimby final/winning Gold/winning the '12 USO/making the '13 AO final then winning '13 Wimby). In 2013 - a Wimbledon/Slam winning year for him - he went 41-8 (83.6 win %). To this point right now in 2015, he's gone 44-6 (88.0 win %). The numbers can't be plainer: Murray is back in potential Slam winning form.

Another way for this to be expressed in simple terms, is as follows: Murray has won a Slam in 2 of the last 3 completed years. In the 2 years he won a Slam, he started the year off well by making at least the SF stage of the AO (as a HC, his best Slam surface based on results). The year out of the 3 he didn't manage to win a Slam, he failed to make the SF stage of the AO. Cue this year? he made the SF stage of the AO = he starts the year well on his best Slam surface since he came of age as a pro, that's the signal to watch out for the Scot.

Now, what about this choker tag Murray has: Regarding specifically Slam SF, he's the opposite of the Fed. Where Roger's form has noticably dipped in SF results in recent years, Murray's has improved leaps & bounds. To wit: prior to the 2012 Wimbledon, Murray managed a 3-6 record in Slam SF. Since then, he's gone 5-2. The 2 losses? on his worst surface, the clay of Roland Garros. That's right, on his favourite Slam surfaces (HC & grass) Murray is 5-0 since he lost to Djokovic in 5 sets at the 2012 AO.


Murray's 5-0 recent non-clay SF record vs. Roger's 1-3 recent non-clay SF record. Murray back in (potential) Slam winning form vs. Roger's getting ever older and further away from his heyday. Murray should be something like -180/200, just like Muguruza should've been (if for different reasons). None of this says Roger can't possibly win, but these odds aren't based on reality, they're deeply grounded in perceptions generated years ago. Which all means once again for me this is a bet which places itself.
 
You like Andy?

Nothing on it myself, but that would be the hold your breath and win, awesome

Any other outcome, I shouldn't have held my breath...

I think he has a decent chance at winning, but also think he's a basket case against the best who is not

Wouldn't bet that one but good luck BC, no rooting interest per se
 
Murray/Joker would be the battle of attrition, both can blow a gasket and both know how to blow each others gaskets
 
I hear you, but I'd amend your thoughts with one word.

Murray was a basket case.

His loss in last year's Wimby to Dimitrov I couldn't care less about. I'm willing to completely write off all his '14 results as irrelevant. So if I then look at the results before that stretch of time, I see nothing but the winning Murray, the guy who killed the best in the world in a final in which he had the most pressure on anyone who's ever played a Wimby final before. Was he a basketcase under that pressure? I see that Murray before me, that's who I'm betting on.

As far as Roger goes, he is what he is. Past his best, but still capable of the one-off lightning peformance (as long as his opponent obliges him to a degree). The only player he's gotten up to best in a SF in years was a guy who is all hat & no cattle. Say what you want about Murray's mentality, his game is much more than that. Someone placing a bet on the Fed expecting Murray to blow up, I can only say GL to you. The odds don't reflect your chances of getting what you want = you're making a bad bet.
 
Ya i read him on blankets hes informative... I agree with KJ. Murray/Fed is a toss up imo cant lay anything significant i think as its goin to be tight.... 4-5 close sets so maybe O...... I disagree with the line i think its even odds for even match.. Fed has been playing great serving amazing only broken once in last 116 service games n murray really hasn't been dominating return could only break popsical once each set.. N murray tends to start gettin frustrated late in sets when he cant break or get good looks... I think fed has looked great all tourny murray looked solid but not blowing opponents out like ppl expected... Nerves could play a part murray lookin for 2-3 yrs at wimbledon.. Goin fed in 4 but get ur popcorn willb great....
 
Mugu gettin no respect tom +500 +5.5..... I kno serena dominance in finals but she has her dips as well .. Hopefully nerves dont hurt mugu to much she will b back in a familiar position as a underdog in match n does not fear serena .... I just worry bout her dippin in a set if she grabs the 1st... O20.5 maybe way togo i like game handicap but a bad set could put that in jeopardy like in FO final with lucie she wins TB but was blown out basically in other 2 sets...... It goes 3 O is inbag thats what im leaning ATM
 
Noles4life said:
Mugu gettin no respect tom +500 +5.5..... I kno serena dominance in finals but she has her dips as well .. Hopefully nerves dont hurt mugu to much she will b back in a familiar position as a underdog in match n does not fear serena .... I just worry bout her dippin in a set if she grabs the 1st... O20.5 maybe way togo i like game handicap but a bad set could put that in jeopardy like in FO final with lucie she wins TB but was blown out basically in other 2 sets...... It goes 3 O is inbag thats what im leaning ATM
Click to expand...

No big write-up for the final, it's all been said.

I've got 19.5 before me, I'm all over the Over for my pre-match bet. I'll deal with Mugu SU via live.
 
i know were passed it but read an article fed has beaten murray now the last 4 times they met... and federer is now 10-0 in semis at wimbledon......
 
Federer beat him 3 times in 2014, so this Wimb. SF win was the 4th. Murray had back surgery late in 2013 & consequentially a long recovery time frame to deal with. That Federer beat him 6-0 6-1 @the ATP Tour Finals in the last of those 3 meetings I personally think says more than just a little bit about where Andy's fitness & energy levels were (that result coming at the end of the year), since not even Federer in his heyday beat a healthy Andy by such a comprehensive scoreline (at the event Andy suffered his only career loss to date vs. Nishikori - their only meeting in 2014 - which is just another pointer about where he was at). 2014 was a write-off year for the Scot (something I did note in my post above), that's why his Slam & non-Slam results against all top players mean little to nothing for me. I can't fully rate the losses suffered by a wounded duck. I'll be looking to back him for the USO title when it arrives upon us (as long as he's not injured, of course).
 
View attachment 39113

That's quite a sweeping final statement from Henman, considering he'd have certainly seen every one of Roger's matches played at Wimbledon. I went back and looked up the stats for each of his biggest matches through his last 3 Wimbledon appearances to see how they compared with his SF win over Murray...

Federer .................. Aces/SG ... 1st Sv % ... UE:W ratio ... BP CR
vs. Murray '15 SF ........ 1.18 .......... 76 ............ 1:5.09 ....... 30.0%
vs. Djokovic '14 F ........ 1.07 .......... 69 ............ 1:2.58 ....... 42.8%
vs. Murray '12 F .......... 0.63 .......... 69 ............ 1:1.63 ....... 25.0%
vs. Roddick '09 F ......... 1.35 .......... 64 ............ 1.2.81 ....... 14.0%

(SG = service game / Sv = serve / W = winners / CR = conversion rate)

Aces
Federer only served more aces per service games against Roddick, which makes sense on 2 levels: (1) he was 6 years younger than he is now, and (2) going into that match specifically knowing what a weapon Roddick's serve was, he knew he'd have to lift his own efforts for cheap points in that regard. As good a server as Murray is, he isn't Roddickesque. That comparison aside, Murray faced nothing like the barrage he got 2 days ago in the '12 final: Roger was literally almost twice as good, which is pretty much insane for a player 3 years older.

1st Serve %
Roger was a full 12 percentage points better against Murray than he was 6 years ago against Roddick: again, simply nuts. Murray only got as good from Roger in '12 as Roger was able to show the Joker in the '14 final, an effort in the latter instance - at 69%, more than respectable - that wasn't good enough to win

Unforced Errors-to-Winners ratio
Here's where it's really nuts. Roger served well, anticipating how well he'd served all tourney? Fine. Roger on the ground was fucking phenomenal. What Murray faced in that SF doesn't begin to compare to what each of his last 3 Wimbledon finals opponents faced.

Break-point conversion rate
Here Roger was merely "ordinary", completely within the arc of his mprevious efforts: which means when Andy served facing being broken, he wasn't significantly worse than anyone serving in the same spot in those 3 previous finals (Roddick's 86% bp-save percentage naturally speaks to the strength of his serve.


It's an obvious observation that Roger repeating his SF form in the F will make him a very very tough opponent to beat. The problem is his actually repeating that effort. Not necessarily just the serving - his form wouldn't have to dip much in either aces/sg or 1st serve % - to still be good enough to give him a great chance to win. No, as I see it his UE-to-Winners ratio is going to be the hardest thing for him to carry over. When he lost the final last year, that ratio was all but half what it was vs. Murray 2 days ago. Some of his winners were just out-of-the-box unrepeatable (I'm thinking of a BH way out of court with Murray at the net, that the Brit ordinarily puts away for an easy voilley even if Roger gets it back in play; instead Roger hit it for a winner that Murray had no shot of getting his raquet to). Add in the fact the Joker is the best returner in the world , and not just that but is ahead of Murray because of his greater aggressiveness (the very trait which has undone Federer in the past, where the Swiss never faces a similar level kind of pressure from Murray), and things start to look a little less rosy for Roger. He turned back the clock with his SF performance, but how often do 33 year olds get lightning to strike twice in any sport, facing the world #1 no less?


Just for interests sakes (since I have the stats at hand)

Murray .................. Aces/SG ... 1st Sv % ... UE:W ratio ... BP CR
vs. Roger '15 SF ........ 0.71 .......... 74 ............ 1:2.06 ......... 0/1
vs. Roger '12 F .......... 0.76 .......... 56 ............ 1:1.84 ......... 2/7

Out of the 2 matches, Murray gave a better showing of himself in the SF just gone, yet he failed to win a set where he did not in '12.


Outside of live betting, I'm considering u10.5 games for the 1st set. Peak performances are notoriously & routinely followed by letdowns (even if they are brief). Roger certainly can't play a better 1st set here than he did against Murray. The Joker played a scratchy match against the Gascan so his form has only one way to go; he has Boom-boom Boris in his camp; and has the sting of a FO final loss behind him. Can well imagine it's letdown vs. fast start here (where Roger didn't get broken once by Murray, can see the tables being flipped with an early break or 2 by the previously unconvincing Serb). Just care to see if anywhere the line goes before I consider placing said bet.

IMO if someone likes Roger to win SU, they could do worse than simply back him to win the 1st set. He's a notorious front runner, and imo he doesn't win this if it's a marathon affair (age does matter), and if he fails to win the 1st then that's what he'll be facing if he expects to win it at all. Of course he won the 1st set last year & still lost SU, so that's the adv. of said bet: you can win & Roger still lose overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BetCrimes1984
A walk back into the past: 2023 Women's US Open
Replies
46
Views
1K
BetCrimes1984
BetCrimes1984
VirginiaCavs
Tuesday Picks Preview Article
Replies
1
Views
140
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
Game 4 ECF and WCF Preview Article
Replies
1
Views
162
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
VirginiaCavs
Sunday Picks Preview Article
Replies
0
Views
584
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
Game 4 Celtics vs. Mavericks Preview Article
Replies
2
Views
174
Fred57
F
Back
Top