Tennis - 2016 French Open

BetCrimes1984

BetCrimes1984

CTG Big Brother
It's the 3rd Round of the French Open, and it's usually at this stage of a Slam that we finally get to see the frauds finding themselves matched up with decent players. By frauds I mean those chicks who have managed an upset or two beyond their abilities after catching lightning in a bottle and/or catching a superior opponent unable to get out of the gate early, or have simply managed a good draw for themselves.

According to world rankings relative to her own, Pauline Parmentier hasn't exactly had a breezy draw through the first 2 rounds, but digging deeper reveals she's basically won a small lottery in drawing 2 players who blow on clay:

- She beat Niculescu in the 1st Round: all you need to know about the Romanian is that before this tourny she was 2-17 in 1R matches at the 3 biggest clay tournaments the WTA puts on (@Roland Garros, 1-7; Madrid, 0-6; & Rome, 1-4).

- In the 2nd Round she beat Irina Falconi: Falconi is a hardcourt player. Her combined record in 1R matches on the grass & clay Slams headed into this FO yielded a 2-4 record, the wins coming against players then ranked 274th & 106th in the world.

This is Parmentier's 33rd Slam appearance, yet only the 3rd time she's made a 3rd Round. From her first Slam appearance (in 2005) up until the end of 2011 she furnished a 7-4 record in 1R matches. Since the start of 2012 to this FO she's gone 7-16 in 1R matches. Since 2012 her best results in Slams have come on hardcourts, which is no better illustrated than in the nature of her losses to exit each Slam since 2012...

Total games played in Parmentier's Slam losses since 2012 (bolded = 3 sets played)

AO & USO losses: 27, 20, 26, 13, 29, 24

Wimbledon losses: 17, 17, 18

French Open losses: 19, 13, 18, 19

Not a single set won by PP in a loss on grass or clay vs. 4 sets won in 6 hardcourt losses. Of all of the losses in straight sets, only 1 was vs. a player ranked better than 20th in the world (Bacsinszky's current ranking is 9th).

Bacsinszky had her breakthrough year last year (after injury & personal issues held her back prior to that). The FO is the Slam that would seem to suit her game best, and what's significant for her here is that by dint of grabbing a SF spot here last year but failing at the USO in '15 (1R loss) & the AO in '16 (a 3R loss), means she has significant ranking points to defend for her to maintain her top 10/20 spot. This is a major reason why I can't see her being vulnerable to 'overlooking' Parmentier. While PP does have a win over her, that was way back in 2006 rendering it irrelevant for me. Their meeting in 2014 also came before Bacsinszky's breakthrough year, so while the Swiss won that match (6-4 7-6) it also fails to register as significant. Bacsinszky is much improved since any of their previous meetings, while PP is now a 30 year old who as at the point of a Slam where she's basically in way over her head. To be fair to her, her only ever 3R win came at the FO in 2014, where she managed the remarkable feat of making the 4R despite losing the 1st set in every match she played. But the moment she met a truly decently ranked player (Muguruza, WR 20 at the time) she got handily beat 6-4 6-2. I expect a similar outcome tonight. Of the 11 sets PP has lost at the FO since 2012, in only 3 of them has she managed to win 4 games (average loss 6-2.3).


The choice here was always going to be Under or the Swiss in straight sets. The price for the total isn't to my liking (I'd take u19.5 for plus odds if offered, but have only u20.5 at lousy odds available), so I've settled on worse odds for the straight sets win (which at least allows the luxury of PP showing up for a set and ruining the Under by forcing a 7-game-winner set).

Bacsinszky 2-0 sets (-150) medium bet
 
But the moment she met a truly decently ranked player (Muguruza, WR 20 at the time) she got handily beat 6-4 6-2. I expect a similar outcome tonight.

The Swiss-Miss must've read my post on her mobile before going out on court: a 6-4 6-2 win it was. u19.5 & u20.5 cash along with the straight sets bet.
 
My thoughts on the matches tonight...

----

Begu vs. Rogers
This is a clear mismatch on paper, but there are reasons one can't sell Rogers short here.

As far as the American goes, she's beaten some impressive names to make the 4R of a Slam for the first time (before this FO she sported a woeful 3-6 record in 1R Slam matches). While Ka. Pliskova's least fave surface is clay, that doesn't lessen the impressive fact that Rogers came back from being a set down to beat her in the 1R. She then beat an in-form Vesnina (18-5 in her previous 23 matches prior to playing the American), and then knocked off Kvitova (who, though like fellow Czech Pliskova isn't a clay fan, still has more than enough pedigree to beat the likes of Rogers on the surface). So one has to respect what Rogers has pulled out of her ass, even though to this point in her youngish career there's nothing she's shown previously that would've have anticipated such consistency (nor to expect it to continue). Prior to this FO, since 2014 she had gone 10-9 in main draw clay matches vs. 12-18 on all other surfaces combined, so it seems she's certainly at home on the red stuff.

As far as the Romanian goes, we certainly have a woman who without a doubt produces her best on clay. Prior to this FO, since 2014 she had gone 28-15 in main draw clay matches vs. 28-27 on all other surfaces combined. Her recent good form has lifted her ranking from 47th to 28th in the world. As far as her Slam history goes, prior to 2015 she had gone 6-8 in 1R matches & 0-6 in 2R matches. 2015 was her breakthrough year, making the 4R at the AO; the 3R at both the FO & Wimbledon, but then returning to her 1R exiting ways at the USO and again at this year's AO. That she's backed up last year's FO effort here can be no surprise given her liking for clay.

Even despite Rogers impressive play, Begu by all rights should be @shorter odds SU imo than she is for this match, but the answer as to why she isn't I don't think is hard to fathom. While the Romanian has played in only 1 set more through 3 rounds than what Rogers has (9 vs. 8), she's spent a full 3 hours longer on court & played in 25 games more (97 vs. 72). That's essentially an extra match under her belt. When you add in the fact that Rogers lead-in to the FO consisted of 1 main draw match (@Strasbourg) vs. 5 for Begu (@Rome), and the picture becomes clearer: one would have to consider Begu's tank as having a lot less gas in it. What we have here imo is the basis to perceive either player being in a position to come out with a flat effort (the usual case of where the mind is willing but the body simply won't follow). As I see it, the player who loses the 1st set here should drop their head and consequently get cleaned up in the 2nd set. Facing having to win yet another 3-set match, they'll simply not have the energy to commit to the task, whereas the 1st set winner's energy will be going in the completely opposite direction: keen to get off the court in the minimum 2 sets. This expectation naturally leads to Under being the play. If they do manage to trash this bet by playing a 3rd set, it'll set up a straight fade of the winner in the next round; the worst result would be for the Over to manage to cash in a straight sets result. The mantra here is win in 2 or lose in 3.

Under 21.5 games (-125) small bet.

----

Muguruza vs Kuznetsova
Kuznetsova's best surface in her older age is clay (having won the French before), and a new coaching set-up apparently has given her career a second wind as she shows a consistency of form in recent times that she hasn't for a number of years. The only previous meeting between these 2 occurred last year on clay, the Russian winning 6-3
5-7 7-5. Both players have won 6 straight sets after dropping their opening effort to kick-off this Slam. Both won 3 matches at Rome (their lead-in tournament) before losing their 4th (though Mugu's loss, to Keys, came after rain interrupted her early dominance, which she never managed to recover when play resumed).

This match is going to tell us a lot about how much a serious threat sexy legs really is to win this thing: a straight sets victory would definitely stamp her as the class of the lower half of the draw. However, you have to go back to the 2014 French Open to find the last time she won 8 straight sets (either within a single tournament or across two tournaments). Match that stat with the fact that 11 of the Russian's last 17 clay court matches have gone to 3 sets, and the fact that 14 of Muguruza's last 18 matches against top 25 players have totaled at least 22 games, means it's hard to not think about the match going to a 3rd set.

Muguruza 2-1 sets win (+275) small bet. Over's price doesn't tempt me since I can envisage realistic outcomes making for a straight sets win to either player, but if it goes to a 3rd set then I'd expect the Russian to wilt before the Spaniard does. Muguruza losing SU really only happens if she's flat/lays an egg from my pov, and that scenario squarely points to the Russian in straights.
 
Halep vs. Stosur
Stosur hasn't won a 4R match at a Slam since the 2012 USO (going 0-2 in her subsequently played 4R matches since then). The only reason she made the 4R this time round is because her nemesis, Safarova, simply isn't all there at the moment, so the Czech left-hander's usual ability to exploit Sam's weak bh was fatally hampered. Even so the Aussie still struggled to put her away, a fact partly down to her having a minor left wrist injury (which further compromises her already weak bh).

On the other side of the net we have a dilemma. Without a shadow of a doubt Halep is one of the most talented players the WTA has to offer and imo is most certainly not a mental midget. But she is an introvert, and that fact exacerbated the psychological issues she struggled with as a result of all the attention she garnered back home following her breakthrough year in 2014 (the highlight of which was a narrow 3-set loss in the French Open final, to drugs-cheat Shitpova). On the heels of those psychological issues came physical injury, and ever since then it's been a guessing game regarding when and where this woman shows her best form. As for the issue of consistently, though, there has never been any question: she's shown no reason to expect it.

Thus the problem with this match comes down to what version of Halep will we get to see? Sam is past her best and she's also banged up: in other words, she's there for the taking. Halep's paying a nice price to win in straight sets, a result she is well capable of managing even if Sam puts up a decent fight. But will she? I'll deal with this one live is my current attitude.

----

Radwanska vs Pironkova
Not much to say here. Pironkova lucked out in drawing Sloane Stephens in the last round, given the American is the WTA's poster child for mental midgetry (seriously, how does one explain the nature of that loss? Sloane lost 18 points in a row at one point, lol). Pironkova's best Slam efforts have been restricted to grass: this is her first visit to the 4R in 11 appearances @RG (no thanks to Sloane), and she last made a QF at a Slam in 2011 (Wimbledon). She's lost 8 of her last 9 vs. Aggy (incl. 3 of 4 on what should be a surface that otherwise favours her, grass), losing all 4 meetings on clay.

This match should be one way traffic, but there are some concerns on the other side of the net. The FO has never really being kind to Fraudwanska: she's 1-3 in her previous 4R matches @RG, doing only worse in the 4R at the USO (0-4). And of course Fraudwanska's game is all pop-gun BS, so she's subject to any opponent beating her if they can channel any sort of aggressiveness to overwhelm the Pole's brick-walling game. Pironkova at least knows what it is to beat her (the last time in 2012), and has made a Slam SF before, so she's got the necessary experience to draw upon. But really, the likely situation here is the Bulgarian is just happy to cash her 4R loser's cheque given she has no real belief in her ability to advance vs. a player who owns her.

Nothing appeals to me here, the Pole's brick-walling BS will never get any of my money at the odds available for her specific options. Under 21.5 would've interested me, but u19.5 dies an almost certain death with a 7-game-winner set, and I at least give the Bulgarian a chance at winning 5 games in one of the sets. Like the Begu/Rogers match, I anticipate a tight 1st set followed by one-way traffic in the 2nd.
 
Muguruza was impressive in dispatching Kuzzy 6-3 6-4. The Russian only earned 4 BP chances (coverting 1) to the Spaniard's 12 (coverting 3). Mugu's serve stays as consistent as it was along with her bh continuing to function as the weapon it can be (she hit 17 winners off that wing) then she's as good a bet as anyone to win this Slam.

Rogers beat Begu by the identical score, 6-3 6-4. If that second set score doesn't quite look like the clean out I predicted, that's because Rogers came out offering nothing to start the 2nd in getting broken easily (making a ton of UE) on the way to going down 2-0 (& I feared was about to take the set off), but then reeled off 4 games as Begu in turn just lacked spark & made too many simple rally errors herself. Rogers served for a 5-2 lead but again got broken easily (due to more tired errors) and was visibly blowing hard, really this was a race that ended with both runners badly winded. Very hard to see Muguruza losing to Rogers, would think the Spaniard's ml would be supreme parlay material come their QF match.
 
My thoughts on tonight's 4 remaining 4R matches...

Before I get into specific fixtures, I'll wheel out some historical stats. For me the modern era of women's tennis begins in 1990 (that's the last year Navratilova ever won a Slam in, matching the first year Seles won a Slam in. Graf was the real beginning of the new wave of women's tennis, but she basically functioned alone in that capacity until 1990).

So, since the modern era kicked off the French Open has never had a 4R go by without at least 1 match going to 3 sets (& this occurring only 5 times in 26 years: the average is 2.8 3-set 4R matches per tournament held). Further, only one 4R has gone by without at least 2 matches totaling 22 games. The two 4R matches in the books so far at this FO have both totaled 19 games. Fraudwanska's match when it resumes (6-2 3-0) isn't going to have either a 3rd set or total 22 games, so that leaves us with 5 matches from which to expect at least a couple to total 22 games/3 sets. I'll rule out Svitolina pushing Serena to such a degree (not that it's impossible of course, but soft-pusher vs. that power? yeah...) and at this point I'll grant Halep a 6-4 1st set win (since Stosur serves first when they resume & Halep has yet to be broken, plus the interruption serves Halep IMO), which means Stosur has a lot of work to do to deliver a 3rd set/22+ game result. That leaves us 3 matches to keep the 26 year modern-era streak of at least 1 x 3-set 4R match alive: Suarez-Navarro/Putintseva, Bacsinszky/V.Williams & Keys/Bertens.


Suarez-Navarro vs Putintseva
Putintseva may have carved up all her opponents to get to this point (dropping just 8 total games in 3 rounds), but it really isn't saying much given her one decent opponent (Petkovic) had won 1 x 3R match in her own previous 14 Slam appearances (dating back 5 years). The Kazak has no previous Slam success to draw upon for what is her toughest assignment to date (this being her first 4R match through 10 main draw Slam appearances plus 4 qualification failures). On the other side of the net is a woman for who clay is a favourite surface: cue the fact that on the 6 previous occasions she's won her 1R match at the French, it's subsequently taken a seeded player to knock her out of the tournament on 5 occasions (the exception - Shvedova - was no slouch on clay either, having made a FO QF before). They have one previous meeting, a 1-6 7-6 6-2 win to the Spaniard at the AO.

As impressive as Puntintseva's results seem on paper, the question is does she have the class on clay to knock off S-N? I'll guess no. What I can't rule out is S-N losing a set, which makes it impossible for me to settle on anything here. Sets or total result is just a lottery as I see it. What's on paper says S-N should win in straights, no more than 20-21 games played (6-4 6-4/7-5 6-3). She had a shitty year last year, but seems to be back to her muddling-best this year. I'd guess the over-performing Putintseva is meeting her 12 months too late. But if the upset is on then in my experience S-N is a bit of a mental midget, so if the Kazak wins, she likely rolls. I'd like to take the Over, I just can't.


Bacsinszky vs V.Williams
Up until the end of 2006, Venus had gone 5-2 in 4R matches at the French. Since then (8 futher appearances) she's only played in one 4R match (which she lost) prior to today. 2006/2007 is really the seminal point in her career for going from being competitive in Paris to sucking huge fat ones. That 2016 has proved to be an exception comes down to the fact that her two toughest opponents to date have been either inexperienced (Kontaviet) or a headcase (Cornet), so while both pushed Venus hard both lacked that extra something to take them all the way. Further, since 2011 Venus has not made the QF of a Slam not played on hardcourt. Age has seemingly taken a much greater toll on the older Williams sister. On the other side of the net, we have a lady who as already stated previously had her breakthrough year in Slams in 2015, with a particular preference for clay given it suits her game perfectly. Since she made the SF last year, she still has significant ranking points to defend with her attempt here to make the QF stage. Previous meetings between these two are 2-0 to Venus, but (1) both were on hardcourts & (2) occurred before 2015 (Bacsinszky's breakout year), so not too much to read into anything there but for this: both scorelines were pretty one-sided, which points to the one concern I have for the Swiss here: Venus has the potential power to overwhelm her pusher antics, though here I must say that (1) she isn't a pure pusher, in that she does look for winners; and (2) that in watching her match against Parmentier I was struck about how much more aggressive she was than I've seen her before, willing to risk UE to end points sooner via attempted winners.

The way I read this match is that Venus will not last 3 sets against the workload Bacsinszky should subject her to, but she has the power to call upon (despite the conditions being slower than usual with the weather) which should be good enough against Bac's softer style to see her win a set. I expect a Swiss win going away in the last set, it's all about how much Venus has left in her tank which will decide the sets outcome.

Bacsinszky 2-1 (+270) small bet


Keys vs Bertens
Keys has made the 4R of the French for the first time, where previously she'd made the 4R of every Slam prior to this year (3 times of hardcourts, once on grass). That's because clay is not her surface.
Clay is not her surface because she's not yet up to it as far as her ground strokes consistency goes, and naturally she's a power player which the clay equally naturally nullifies. Her opponents to date have been a turnstile (Vekic sported a 3-7 clay record the last 3 years prior to playing Keys in 1R) and a couple of ladies off heavy workloads (Duque-Marino endured a heavy workload in her lead-up to the FO, then played out a 2+ hour 1R match, while Puig fought out a 3 hour, 7-5 6-7 7-5 win over Goerges). So the two opponents who at least could be said to have ground games better suited to clay than Keys (though Puig certainly wouldn't call clay her best surface), were ripe for the picking by the American. Facing her is a woman who has won 10 straight (and 17 of her last 19) clay court matches, and has had the experience of playing a 4R match at Roland Garros before.

The problem for Bertens is the same one that existed for Duque-Marino & Puig: does she have enough fuel in her tank to otherwise exploit the advantage she has over Keys that playing on this surface gives her, given she's off a 3 hour match on top of her workload previous to it. If this match had been played when it was scheduled, a straight sets win to Keys wouldn't have surprised despite Berten's tremendous form. But the weather has come to Kiki's rescue, and the extra day off surely has been a tonic for the area of concern I have for her here. I don't believe Keys has a good enough ground game to wipe the floor with Dutchie, but equally I don't believe Bertens even with a little extra rest has enough gas to prevent Keys from winning at least a set. From 1-1 I'd expect Keys to pull away with the match, but this bet doesn't care who wins a 3rd, it only cares there is a 3rd.

Over 21.5 games (-125) small bet


 
Venus was utter garbage, but despite the further extra day's rest that Berten's got making her match with Keys much less likely to go Over, it crept across the line at the end.

Tale of the last 2 days: nailing the totals, but 2 bitches who have been to French Open finals before haven't been able to deliver squat to give the 2-1 sets bets any hope at all.
 
@BC:venus has a auto immune disease for years now. so when she has to play couple of matches in a row, usually good to fade her when she spent some time on the court in previous rounds, especially on clay which is the most physical surface. can't wait to take muguruza ATS vs serena if they meet in what should be a close match
 
edou1x said:
@BC:venus has a auto immune disease for years now. so when she has to play couple of matches in a row, usually good to fade her when she spent some time on the court in previous rounds, especially on clay which is the most physical surface. can't wait to take muguruza ATS vs serena if they meet in what should be a close match
Click to expand...

I hear you, but the 2 days delay due to the weather should've allowed her to have recovered enough from her Cornet 3-setter to at least shown for one set (& conversely I guessed that Bacs would have a lull for at least a set after winning 6-7 straight sets). The Swiss just played as well as I've seen her play. While she forced Venus under pressure to make a ton of UE (which is her usual tactical approach to win matches), she also hit 16 winners to 5, which is a fact that underlines the observation I made after her match vs. Parmentier: she's deliberately playing more aggressively, and her game is better for it. She's no longer settling to be just a pusher who hits the occasional winner. Venus simply isn't good enough any more to live with what the quality the Swiss brought to the table. Serena isn't guaranteed to make the final if Bacs can keep refining her new/improved approach.
 
Remaining QF thoughts:

Serena vs Putintseva
Facing 4 matches in 4 days yesterday resulted in Serena getting off the court rather quickly against Svitolina. Facing 3 matches in 3 days should result in her attitude being no different, so what's on paper says this should be a similar result. The only thing I can see upsetting any of the expected results (straight sets/under/spread cover) is the fact that Putintseva is, like Cibulkova, a bit of a pocket rocket. Unlike the 3 ladies that Serena has buried at this tournament so far (Rybarikova, Pereira & Svitolina), Putintenseva isn't a soft touch, she packs a punch. Cue the fact that while Serena has beaten her in straight sets in their previous 2 meetings (one on clay), the Kazak has forced a 1st set tiebreaker on both occasions. Sometimes 1 game can make all the difference: if I had u19.5 at then usual pick'em odds I'd bet Under, but I'm not interested at 18.5 - I'd give the Kazak up to 7 games for her best possible result (6-4 6-3/7-5 6-2 loss).


Bacsinszky vs Bertens
Covered the basics of these players previous, but recapping the main points: Dutchie has now won 11 straight (& 18 of 20) clay court matches and while she's been pushed hard in a couple of long affairs @RG (her 1R & 3R matches), the weather gods giving her a couple of days off served to refill her gas tank for her 4R clash with Keys. Compared to her historical norms, Dutchie's form is basically unconscious: Since 2014 until the Nuremberg tournament that was her lead-in to this FO (where her 11-0 run started), she went 24-38 in main draw matches: 9-8 on clay & 15-30 on all other surfaces. While she did win 6 straight matches at the 2014 FO (her previous longest winning streak involving main draw matches), that included 2 qualifiers & she met only 1 player ranked inside the Top 50 through the first 4 rounds; here she's faced 2 players ranked in the top 20 & 1 ranked in the Top 40 through the first 4 rounds.

As for her opponent, Bacsinszky is coming of age as a player before our eyes, adding an aggressive dimension to her game at this FO that I didn't see present last year when she made the SF stage. I've said basically everything else I can about this woman in my previous posts, except to note that Timea hasn't put any opponent to the sword yet: everyone she's played has won 4 games in at least 1 set against her.

There are 2 key factors that tell me Bertens great run of form ends here, one to do with herself & the other her opponent:
(1) As impressive as her form has been, through the first 4 rounds Bertens only faced one player (Kasatkina) whose game is naturally at home on clay, and that just happens to be the one match in which she was 1 game away (no less than 3 times) from being defeated. Kasatkina failed due to injury & a lack of experience, two important attributes that Bacsinszky won't be hampered by the lack of here.
(2) Bertens is playing in a Slam QF for only the 2nd time in 13 Slam appearances (& prior to this FO she had lost 9 1R Slam matches). So there's little doubt that the Dutch media attention that's she's currently receiving isn't at a level she's used to, especially as her previous QF berth was at the AO where this Slam is the closest geographically to her home country. So immediately there's the issue of off-court bullshit hype sucking away at her steadily dwindling energy reserves. And while the weather gods were kind to her in giving her those extra days off, her win against Keys still betrayed signs that her workload since the qualifiers at Nuremberg has started to take it's toll: serving for the 1st set at 5-4 up she got broken, losing 4 straight points after being 30-0 up. I read a combination of nerves & fatigue playing a part in that result; she's lucky she was facing the incomplete player that is Keys after dropping that service game, given the American simply didn't have the attributes to ultimately make her pay.

If I don't see Bertens winning this match, that's certainly not to say she can't. She's going to present Bacsinszky with the Swiss's version of kryptonite: power. When Serena finally found her groove in last year's SF, she won the last 10 games played against Timea. To be fair the Swiss was tiring at the same time after her efforts through 1 1/2 sets & making easily her deepest ever Slam run at the time, so there were other reasons underlying her dramatic collapse. But her susceptibility to be overpowered is always going to be an issue (cue Muguruza's win over her at the 3R of Wimbledon a few weeks later: she made 25 UE in just 2 sets, & grass is the Spaniard's least favourite surface), and that's what Bertens has going for her here. IMO Bertens only chance is to win this match in 2 sets, given I don't believe she has the gas to compete with a Top 10 player come a 3rd set given her workload to this point. This unquestionably should be Timea's toughest workout yet, and given she hasn't failed to drop at least 4 games in a single set in any match to this point against opponents whose form or liking for clay come nowhere near Bertens', I think the bets that stand out for this match are obvious...

Over 21.5 games (-125) small bet
Bacsinszky 2-1 sets (+275) small bet

Finally, some history: Since 1990 (the start for me of the WTA's modern era) there has only been 2 instances in 26 FO played where all 4 WTA QF matches have been decided in straight sets (1995 & 2015). 2 QF have already been played & decided in straights so far in '16 and there can't be much doubt that Serena should manage the feat, which leaves this Swiss/Dutch battle as the lone candidate to avoid this otherwise historically unusual sweep. 1 of the 2 exceptional 'all-straight-sets' QF years was last year: the FO has never delivered all-straight-sets QF over consecutive years since the main draw involved 128 entrants (1983); and has done so only once (1979-80) since the initial years that began the Open era (1968-69). So these bets are squarely in line with what the historical trends are calling for in light of last year's QF sweep.
 
just wonder when Bertens will run out of gas timea is a tough opponent to play against cuz of her quirky play but ur right bertens has to win first set for her to have any shot or for O to hit.... if timea squeaks out first set could be a truck in 2nd
 
If you told me beforehand that Timea would break Bertens 4 times in the first 2 sets, I'd have thought the Over & her 2-1 sets win would be in serious danger of her winning in straight sets. As it stands, that Bertens beat her 6-2 in the 2nd & broke her 7 times in 10 service games to screw the Over is a seriously impressive result. If I made a mistake in appraising this match, it was to underestimate the extent to which those 2 extra days off (not just 1) have refilled her gas tank. Here's hoping, for the sake of Muguruza futures, that she can stay competitive for one more match: if Mladenovic's power can push Serena to the limit (Frenchie had a 2nd set game point in their 3R clash, and clay isn't even her best surface) then there's no reason Bertens can't do at least the same as long as she's not plagued by fatigue. Problem for Kiki though she'll now be playing at the point of a Slam she's never played in before & the Dutch media will no doubt be going gaga over her, so to have to play Serena under such conditions...we've seen what happens before with other Slam SF rookies.

Oh, and I'd like to give no small thanks to Serena for dropping the 1st set. The "historical pressure" for Kiki & Timea to play a 3rd set was released the moment that lousy effort was put up by the Beast.
 
My semi-final thoughts...

Serena vs Bertens
Serena has hammered 3 players at this FO (Rybarikova, Pereira & Svitolina) and struggled with 2 others (Mladenovic & Putintseva). The fault-line between the 2 is the former grouping concerns softer hitting women while the latter involves harder hitting women. Bertens doesn't lack power, and she prefers the clay whereas Serena does not. Bertens is also in the middle of an "unconscious" run of form (won 12 straight & 19 of her last 21 played on clay), so what's on paper says this shouldn't be a straight walkover.

However, for Bertens is this is a maiden Slam SF and that combined with the hype she's undoubtedly being subject to (she's the first Dutch woman to make a SF at this tournament since 1927, and the first to make any Slam SF since 1977) makes for conditions which have the propensity to snap her out of her "unconsciousness". It's going to be hard for her not to start thinking about things that are completely irrelevant & that haven't been a concern (slash mental interference) up until now: like the size of the prize money she'll get for just losing and the difference it's going to make to her life (having previously lost a Slam QF before, that shouldn't have been a concern last time out); then there's the issue of potentially making a Slam final: - how large that possibility looms, esp. from a historical perspective. Dutch sporting immortality awaits her and she must surely be cognizant of the fact; then of course there's the intimidation factor that lower ranked players have with facing Serena, since it's usually a novelty factor for them to get to play her. Added to these concerns will surely come the inevitable moment Serena manages to consistently frustrate her efforts by winning a run of games once play gets underway, where the temptation will be for Bertens to start to overthink/doubt what's previously worked for her. All these psychological hurdles will weigh against her play remaining "unconscious"/untouched by thinking/frustration/doubt. The moment she "regains consciousness" is the moment when I believe the physical fatigue which the adrenaline of success & expectation has until now kept at bay for her will suddenly make its presence felt, and the moment that happens then, as the saying goes, we should see the wheels fall off the bus.

Bertens winning obviously requires her to get out of the gate fast yet again (she's 5-0 thus far in 1st sets). If she manages that feat then we'll immediately know all the head issues haven't proved to be fatally distracting and so we should have a live match. From there it'll be all about how long her adrenaline can keep her looming mental/physical fatigue issues at bay. If she loses the 1st, then the fat lady should make short work of the song to be sung (if she lost the 1st & yet like Vinci went on to win the match, I'd be speechless). This expectation of Bertens falling off a cliff when she regains consciousness is what ruins the most obvious bet for me (+5.5 games). On the surface of it the size of that spread is an insult to both players' form (as I mentioned, Serena has yet to bury any hard hitter she's faced thus far), but the issues I've outlined obviously undermine any confidence I have in believing that she doesn't get rolled in at least 1 set (any 6-0/6-1/6-2 loss means that she can fight hard & do well in the other set - or even sets - and yet still fail to cover that number). Live betting will be my approach to this one.


Muguruza vs Stosur
Little doubt in my mind that Stosur's presence at this stage of the Slam is almost completely fortuitous. She lucked out in drawing perennial FO 1R losers Doi & Zhang through the first 2 rounds (each woman having gone 1-3 & 0-5 in their respective previous 1R FO matches prior to 2016), and even then struggled at various times to put away both of them (the Chinese woman's lack of ability to play on clay vs. Sam's liking for it especially should have resulted in a much more comfortable win than simply 6-3 6-4, if the Aussie truly was traveling as well as making the SF stage otherwise would suggest she is). She then played an indifferent (for various reasons) Safarova in the 3R, which meant the Czech lefty's usual ability to exploit the biggest hole in Sam's game (bh) was compromised. Then down 5-3 to Halep the rain came and when play resumed the conditions (in lighter rain) suited the harder hitting players (cue Stosur's & Pironkova's comebacks against softer-hitting pushers, the latter struggling with getting any pace on the heavier ball). Stosur then prevailed over the much less accomplished Bulgarian in an otherwise tight QF match pretty much based on her ability to play on clay (where Pironkova played in a QF here for the first time in 11 appearances: at the WTA's 3 biggest clay tournies - the FO, Madrid & Rome - the Bulgarian had compiled a 8-15 1R & 2-6 2R record prior to this year). Still, as fortunate & consistent as her luck has been, the Aussie's advantages here are the experience factor (she's making her 4th SF appearance here in 8 years, as well as being a former finalist vs. this being Mugu's first FO SF) and the sense she has nothing to lose as the rank outsider, whereas so many of her past failures can be squarely put down to her being a mental midget crumbling under the pressure of expectation: if ever a woman can be said to have had her game/career suffer due to winning a Slam, it's Stosur (similar to, but not nearly as spectacular as, another Aussie whose sporting career suffered for winning a big event: Ian Baker Finch).

Muguruza got troubled a little more than probably would've been expected by Rogers in her QF, but then she was off a peak effort in dismantling Kuznetsova (who had been in quite decent form) and likely didn't feel threatened by the American, which with hindsight suggests she was probably susceptible to a bit of a letdown/taking Rogers easy (speaking to this is the fact she lost her first service game of the match, losing 3 straight points from 30-15 up). Still, she broke Rogers for the first time when she absolutely had to (when the American was serving for the 1st set at 5-4 up) and then immediately broke her again to take the set 7-5 (she also only lost 13 total points in her 10 subsequent service games after being broken first up). It's that kind of consistency over consecutive matches deep in a tourney that's been absent in the past for the Spaniard, so the signs of the improvements she's needed to make to win a Slam are certainly being made visible. The next signal in her growth-curve will be how well she plays here. Stosur won their only previous meeting, in 3 sets on clay in 2014, but then that was exactly the same stat that existed prior to Mugu's match against Kuznetsova (a solitary 2015 meeting on clay, the Russian winning in 3 sets) yet that very brief history anticipated nothing that subsequently unfolded. (Also to note: that Stosur loss was prior to Mugu's breakthrough Slam effort at the 2014 FO.)

I've a couple of small future bets on Mugu (recent snap decisions, hence no input here) so this match for me is as much about what it tells us about how serious a threat Muguruza is to win the final as it is anything else = I'm content to remain otherwise uninvolved prior to live betting ops. The most attractive pre-match option odds wise to catch my eye is a Mugu straight-sets win: she plays anything like she did against Kuznetsova (the best I've seen her play since her run to make the final at Wimbledon last year) and Stosur is not going to get a sniff of winning a set. However, the one historical hole in that idea is the fact she's now equaled her personal best of 9 consecutive sets won at a Slam (previously managed at the 2014 FO: her 9th set won there was her QF 1st set vs. Sharapova; she subsequently dropped the 2nd & 3rd sets 7-5 & 6-1 to lose SU). Stosur obv. has enough to her game that she's well capable of ending that streak if Mugu doesn't repeat the form she's shown since her slow start out of the gate vs. Schmiedlova. But all things considered, there are few excuses for the Spaniard to not win in straights here: she's only beginning to hit her prime while the Aussie's career is to whatever extent on its downside. It's time for sexy legs to absolutely roll and win this while dropping no more than 7-8 games. Anything better than that will be a very strong sign that she's up for repeating her 2014 FO straight-sets win over Serena in the final. As always (with regards to live betting), look out for how well her bh & serve are functioning, they alone usually betray where she's headed.

 
Sexy Legs vs. the Beast

For Williams, meanwhile, this tournament has seemed at times to be a test of her patience and doggedness because she has not moved with anything like full fluency – and finally we know why. The world No1 was curt to the point of rudeness in the briefest of press conferences late on Thursday night after beating Yulia Putintseva in the quarter-finals and it was left to her friend Marion Bartoli to reveal on ITV just before the semi-final that she was injured.
Click to expand...

Bertens, too, was injured. She was hobbled by what some of her Dutch compatriots in the press box called “a serious calf injury” – and it showed whenever she had to move towards the net, although her sideway mobility was not so impaired.
Click to expand...

So, unknown to anyone right until before the match started, both players were injured. From these facts I reflect on the following:

- Serena won 5 of 6 games in the 2nd set after Bertens went up 2-0 (& served for 3-0). That she could manage that feat while dealing with an injury squarely suggests her injury in and of itself can't be that bad, because however hampered Bertens was coming forward, her play otherwise wasn't visibly affected. I watched, and besides rarely attempting to even run down Serena's occasional drop shots (while watching I had no idea of this injury preventing her forward movement), she otherwise looked to be playing exactly as she had in the previous rounds.

- Bertens absolutely blew that match. Serena went 1/1 in BP chances in the 1st set; Kiki went 1/7. IMO Serena doesn't last all of a 3rd set on clay when her serve - which every other part of her game keys off of - wasn't/isn't functioning as normal (and obviously a groin issue is going to affect her serve); and of course going to a 3rd set would've been her 8th set played in 3 days/6th in 2 days (the latter against players who hit for power).

I mention the above because what it says about the final. Muguruza, unlike Bertens, is someone who...

- is ranked inside the Top 4
- has no injury concerns (that we know of/have been visibly noticeable)
- in her last 2 FO has only been beaten by an eventual finalist (in 2015 that was a left-hander, and crucially Mugu has issues with lefties that she doesn't with righties)
- has played in a Slam final before (against Serena, no less)
- hasn't dropped a set for 5 straight matches or played any tiebreakers (where Serena's dropped a set & needed tiebreaks to win 2 other sets over her last 5 matches)
- is completely at home on the clay of Roland Garros

It's mind-boggling when you see it in b&w, the advantages Muguruza has to bring to bear that Bertens did not, and yet even without those innumerous advantages & carrying an injury herself Kiki was still a handful of unconverted BP chances away from winning the 1st set & imo therefore being odds-on to win that match.

----

A significant presence in Muguruza's corner who wasn't there either when Muguruza beat Serena at the '14 FO or at Wimbledon last year, is her (new) coach, Sam Sumyk. Having watched some of her matches live when coaches are allowed to be called down to talk to players during changeovers or between sets, I've seen this guy interact with her and he is the shit. Calm & smooth, serious, knows how to deal psychologically with players. Some of these guys come down (which more often than not is when their charges aren't playing well, naturally enough) and they match and reflect back the agitation their charge feels & even get into semi-arguments with them, it's amazing they keep their jobs because they show themselves to have no idea how to manage a player's psyche. But this guy? Cool as a f'king cucumber. Furthermore he's a Frenchman, so they are the perfect combination to be dealing with this specific tournament: she was brought up on this surface, he's paid his dues on it. However & whenever Garbine came across this guy, she hit the lottery...

Eleven months later and the 22-year-old has grown up a lot and would like nothing better than to claim her first Grand Slam with Williams on the other side of the net.

"Well, you know, it was a first final," she said [speaking of Wimbeldon in 2015]. "The opponent was tough to beat. I was tense. It was difficult for me to manage stress. The surface was of course totally different. It's on grass.

"I remember three points that I missed and she took advantage of this, but otherwise I wouldn't say I made a very big mistake.

"I have learned a lot how to control my emotions inside the court and outside the court. It's very important, because sometimes it's not too good to show them.
Click to expand...

In those last words I hear her coach's intelligence/influence. The key question is, has Garbine taken those words to heart in reality, or was she just mouthing his thoughts when she spoke to the media above because she knew that's what he'd expect her to say. Nothing about her consistent play so far says it's the latter.

----

I mentioned it above, but I want to expand on it, because it is the key to this final. Even if the weather had been kind and Serena had no injury, I'd be picking the Spaniard to win. And it's down to one thing: the surface. Serena has never won consecutive French Opens. Since 2003 she's only won it twice: who did she beat on those 2 occasions? Sharapova & Safarova. What do those 2 players share in common? They're not power players, their games are built first & foremost around returning the ball/manoeuvring the ball around. While neither is a 'pure pusher' (in the mode of Radwanska or Bacsinszky), neither has the ability to hit through an opponent, cue the fact that their styles match-up so badly with Serena. Serena's HtH record against Maria & Lucie? 19-4 (4-0 on clay, won 8 of 9 sets) & 9-0 (3-0 on clay, won 7 of 8 sets). Now, what is Muguruza's record (as a power player) on clay vs. Serena? 1-0, won 2 of 2 sets. How many games did Serena win in that encounter (weather was fine, Serena had no injury: I saw part of that match knowing little about the Spaniard at the time)? She won 4 games. Not in each set, mind you, that's over the whole match.

Add in the fact Serena has an injury which undermines her service game and the fact she's playing a 4th match in 4 days (& her 3rd hard hitting opponent in 3 days), and the reason why I think this line is where it is should become clear. It's not simply down to Serena's injury, that's merely the icing on the cake. She's 34, she had to start feeling Father Time's toll at some point. She feels it against those opponents who can pack a punch, while the 3 soft-hitting bitches she faced thus far are players she's swatted away like flies. However, Serena's inability to beat a quality pusher (but again, not a 'pure' one) in the AO final, on top of her inability to beat yet another quality pusher in the USO SF (the Vinci loss even more inexcusable than the one to Kerber), are results that for me mark the beginning of the end of her being a force in Slams. IMO she'll not have surpassed Graf by the end of this year, and will be lucky to win more than one further Slam beyond Dec. 2016 before she retires. As long as the cream of the WTA's new wave of talent stays healthy (apart from Muguruza, I'm thinking about Bencic & Halep in particular; as well as Azarenka of course, since the Belarusian is hardly done @26 yrs old), then Serena's increasing age is going to count against her rather quickly. I believe this will be the last French Open final she ever plays, while on the other side of the net I think a Muguruza win could kickstart a Nadal-like run of domination @Roland Garros by the Spaniard. Her efforts here the last 3 years do nothing to counteract that belief (her loss to Safarova last year was the highest quality tennis match I watched in 2015 - it took fantastic tennis from the Czech to deny Muguruza's progressing to the SF, where ftr the awaiting opponent was Ivanobitch: as if Muguruza wouldn't have beaten her. Only wonderful play by Lucie stopped this coming final from happening a year sooner).

The Spaniard has made no secret that the French Open is a tournament she grew up dreaming of winning, and at 22 years old, she just may be ready to make that dream come true.

"Here at Roland Garros, it's special for Spanish people. I think for everyone, but Roland Garros in Spain is, like, everything. I don't know. It's like a second home here."
Click to expand...

----

So, what does all this hot air translate to bets-wise?

Should be obvious from the above that l find it hard to believe Serena wins in anything other than straight sets. So if you love her hth odds, I'd forget those and just take her to win either the 1st set (that way you can collect your bet while Muguruza goes on to win the 2nd set then pulls out the 3rd running away
icon12.png
) or to win in straight sets (when was the last time she paid this much to win without dropping a set?).

If what I've said has made you realise that hunting for Muguruza options that contain some value is the only thing that make sense for betting this match, then I've a few ideas.

- I'm seeing Garbine +130 to win the 2nd set. The more I think about this the more I like it. If she loses the 1st I'd expect Serena to abort any serious effort to win the 2nd set if & when Muguruza got into a lead by breaking her & then consolidating said break. The American would have to know at such a point that she has only so much energy to give (cue the 4th match in 4 days reality) and odds are she'd simply not try to match the 2nd set intensity Muguruza would be subjecting her at such a point (Mugu's Wimbledon final experience last year of losing the 1st set and then coming back to tie 4-all in the 2nd after being down 4-1 is, to me, going to be a crucial calming experience for her to draw upon if fact she loses the 1st set). And of course if Muguruza wins the 1st then (1) +130 for starters is going to represent tremendous value, because it won't be paying that live. And (2) speaking more to the dynamics of the match, Serena should come hard early in the 2nd off a 1st set loss but if Muguruza can withstand that early pressure (& given the injury & schedule issues Serena has, her ability to sustain such pressure is seriously compromised) then I see little reason not to expect the Spaniard to win in straights. Further, if Muguruza wins a monumental 1st set (7-5/7-6) then chances are Serena simply won't have the gas to make any sort of serious 2nd set push and Muguruza likely runs away with the match. Again, Garbine hammered her 6-2 6-2 at the 2014 FO, their only previous meeting on clay. She has only improved since that result. She has the ability to repeat that effort here, even if Serena was at her less-than-4-months-from-35-years-of-age physical peak. I just think these are great odds when no matter which player wins the 1st set, the pointers to me then squarely finger Muguruza to win the 2nd.

- Can't fault anyone taking the +2.5 games: If Serena managed to win in 3 sets, I'd expect the most sizable set win to belong to the Spaniard (something like a 6-3 2-6 6-4 result: short initial sets that don't drain Serena, allowing her to compete in the 3rd). Only a straight sets win to the Beast denies this (and even then 7-6 7-6 is a winner: not like Serena hasn't had her share of 7-game winner sets recently).

- Not interested in the full game total, since I'd never write-off Serena winning a set.

- Serena to win the 1st set & lose the match +800-900? If you want a flyer, that's the option to take one on imo. If she can lose to Vinci on her favourite surface after easily winning the 1st set, she sure as hell can against Muguruza on clay.


As well as my sexy legs futures & dealing with live betting, I've taken...

Muguruza to win the 2nd set (+130) small bet

View attachment 40952
 
@BC: totally agree. mugu is kind of azarenka with better serve and less mental issues Azarenka pushed a couple of times serena to the limit in US open,etc.. See mugu winnin in similar way to Kerber. Injury +34 years old+serena worst surface and playing yesterday is too much to overcome in my min. like MUGU +1.5 sets@1.56 and MUGU ML@2.49

wrong player is favorite here. game should pe a pickem at best for serena. Plus Serena indicated she had to draw on tis reserves physicall yesterday. Only is mental warrior mind could save her. I remind last year flue/disease from serena. she looked like lost on couple of matches and found a way to come back and win. so you never know.

@BC: Have you got the stats in Mens and womens W/L record for player over 30 years old in grand slams finals since 2000? looking at sampras/agassi an now Roger seems you lose more than you win when playing on the final step. At 30+ it's tough to streak good performances day after day. is use matchstat/flashscore mainly for capping. So what site do you use ti have all the stats you mentioned?? Thanks
 
edou1x said:
@BC: Have you got the stats in Mens and womens W/L record for player over 30 years old in grand slams finals since 2000? looking at sampras/agassi an now Roger seems you lose more than you win when playing on the final step. At 30+ it's tough to streak good performances day after day. is use matchstat/flashscore mainly for capping. So what site do you use ti have all the stats you mentioned?? Thanks
Click to expand...

edou1x - here are links to all the mens & womens Slam champions (unfortunately they only list the winners, not losers: you'll have to go to wiki's individual pages for each year's individual Slam - like this one for the 2015 WTA FO - to find the loser). Be fairly easy to sift through the results to find out the ages of the winners for anytime period given the format is easy to use...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_women's_singles_champions


I use matchstat & flashscore like you (the latter is great for finding out how games & sets were won by clicking on the point-by-point link, as you probably already know), but I visit the guardian sports page as a primary source for tennis articles, I find that site provides some good coverage of the sport. But you can't overlook the WTA site, that's useful as well.
 
"I owe him a lot for having me educated. Sam has a completely different approach and mindset. He guided me to help me find the right mental approach, the attitude of a winner."

That's what Azarenka had to say about Sam Sumyk. She only won her first Slam after he became her coach (in 2010).
 
Thanks Ret. The line today told the story, I just elaborated on what the line was obviously saying. Books don't give Serena those odds in a Slam final for fun.
 
gongrats to all mugu backers.

For tomorrow, final is a bit more complicated to cap/have a stron opinion. My gut feeling is not made yet. interested to know what you think BC about djoko-muzzard.

My main question is the 1st 2 rounds in 5 sets for murray and the 3 hour match vs gasquet. yeah murray has more chances on clay than on open door hardcourts like AO ou US vs djoko. If he is 100%, murray should have some opportunities. think RG is the only slam where djoko has some nerves/mental issues. He has not won it only because of RAFA but because clay doesn't suit his game best. you need to have topspin shots on clay , slice , drop shots, all the weapons muray got.

He had to save match points vs TSONGA , made 5 sets vs seppi in previous French opens. The fact he is playing with umpire and young ball keepers after match to celebrate/seduce the public show he needs the public in its pocket to win. will it finally make it like Roger or Agassi after countless opportunities perhaps yes but its odd ML are prohibitive @1.33
he lost a set vs bautista agut but he has not been tested yet which could be an issue for the final. you spend too much time on court=tired. but if you win too easily without losing sets or winning tiebreakers you can lose the habit of winning tough points in tough spots (tie break/break points to save ,etc...)

THe french public is usually neutral when monfils played vs federer cause one hand monfils is french but on other hand everybody admire roger. So tomorrow everbody wants novak to lose in the public to try protecting fed's slam records. There will be more murray's backers than ever.
 
Muzza vs. the dirty Serb

French Open Mens final thoughts & stats...

Not many thoughts away from what anyone else is thinking from me. Nole has paid his dues @RG with 3 final losses (2 vs. Nadull; 1 vs. Stanimal), while this is Murray's first final here. These 2 did have a whopper of a 5-set battle in a SF last year, but the scoreline (6-3 6-3 5-7 5-7 6-1) squarely suggests to me Nole mentally took Murray easy after he went up 2-0 in a comfortable matter, a fact underlined that when he had no choice but to turn it on again the moment he could no longer afford to F around, he just laid the hammer. Here it's a final that from a number of angles Nole is desperate to win, so one can't imagine him lifting his foot off the pedal in a similar manner for any lengthy duration.

Bout the only things I see going for Murray are the fact that (1) he has a recent clay final win over Nole (though Nole was off tough QF & SF matches in Rome, where here he most certainly isn't despite the fact those Rome QF & SF matches only entailed 5 total sets played vs. 6 here); (2) he can reflect on the fact he did win 2 sets in last year's SF @RG, and by extension...(3) he's won 6 of the last 10 sets they've played on clay the last 2 years. Not something he'll be considering, but also the fact Nole is trying to win a 4th straight Slam = never an easy task, even outside a calendar year.

Interestingly Nole has only won 2 of his 11 Slam titles in straight sets (both his favourite surface, hard court), with all 3 of his previous FO finals going 4 sets (all totaling exactly 39 games played). 63.1% of his Slam finals have been decided in 4 sets vs. only 33.3% of Murray's (although since the Scot registered his first Slam title, 50.0% of his subsequent finals have been decided in 4 sets).

Stand out stats I found as a guide for live betting:

In Slam matches between these 2 players...

- the winner of the 1st set has gone 8-1 SU
- the winner of the 2nd set has gone 6-3 SU
- the winner of the 3rd set has gone 6-3 SU

...but things become a lot clearer when the winner of a set did so without that set requiring a tiebreak. Once the tiebreaker results are excised from our stat pool, then...

- the winner of the 1st set has gone 7-0 SU
- the winner of the 2nd set has gone 5-1 SU
- the winner of the 3rd set has gone 5-3 SU

Since the French Championships in the Open era aren't renown for delivering 1st set tiebreaks in the Men's final (only 4* times it's occurred in 48 matches), then the odds quite strong we'll know the likely likely winner less than 50-60 mins into the match (*one of those sets was an 8-6 result before tiebreaks were introduced, but obv. it would've gone to a tiebreak had it occurred after the rule changes, so I've counted it as such).

Anyway, that's all I've got re general thoughts. Next post will concern specific betting angles.
 
Stats

The historical stats regarding the 48 French Championship finals in the Open era married with the hth record of Nole squaring off against Murray have coughed up some most interesting numbers...

Will there be a tiebreak in the match?
In 48 finals, a total of 15* tiebreaks have taken place (over 180 sets) in 14 different matches (*that includes what I said in the previous post regarding the 8-6 1st set score from the 1971 final). So that's an average of 1 tiebreak every 3.43 finals played, which equates to a 29.17% rate. So the rate for a tiebreak not occurring in a final is 70.83%. Translating those probabilities into odds:

Yes, there'll be a tiebreak = 29.17% = +242
No, there'll be no tiebreak = 70.83% = -242

Time's running short so I'll just post the above, the fact that Murray & Nole have fought out 1 tiebreak in 13 previous sets played on clay, and my pre-match bet...

Will there be a tiebreaker? No (+135) small bet

-----

That's me until Wimbledon.:cheers3:

 
@BC:nice prop bet. it makes sense between these two who can easily break each other ,especially on CLay where it's tougher than grass to keep your serve games.
48 finals are French open men finals? or all Grand slams finals in modern era for men?
 
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
R
WNBA plays
Replies
35
Views
322
RBD
R
mrpickem
FIGHT NIGHT - LEWIS VS NASCIMENTO
Replies
7
Views
222
mrpickem
mrpickem
Wiretowire
MLB Thursday 8/15
Replies
3
Views
113
Wiretowire
Wiretowire
mrpickem
Fight Night: Burns vs Brady
Replies
3
Views
75
mrpickem
mrpickem
Back
Top