BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
The other thread turned into an In-Game, so to save my thoughts "getting lost" in the muddle I've made this "my" home.:cheers:
Last edited:
Wimbledon 2013 Thoughts & Bets
- Thread starter BetCrimes1984
- Start date
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Parlayed Kerber ml/Robson-Duque U19.5/Bouchard ml for a small bet.
By my reckoning Kanepi has 1 real win of note in 11 matches at Wimby (only once making it past the 2nd round), whereas Kerber has a number of them. Kerber's made the 4th round of her last 5 straight Slams. This match is on her racquet.
Robson has played 5 matches at Wimby: against Hantuchova, Jankovic, Kerber, Sharapova & Schiavone. Every one of them totaled at least 22 games (all Over results). She finally faces a "nobody" = finally an Under is on the cards.
Suarez-Navarro was all at sea when Lucic was avoiding committing a ton of UEs. Bouchard has this match on her racquet.
By my reckoning Kanepi has 1 real win of note in 11 matches at Wimby (only once making it past the 2nd round), whereas Kerber has a number of them. Kerber's made the 4th round of her last 5 straight Slams. This match is on her racquet.
Robson has played 5 matches at Wimby: against Hantuchova, Jankovic, Kerber, Sharapova & Schiavone. Every one of them totaled at least 22 games (all Over results). She finally faces a "nobody" = finally an Under is on the cards.
Suarez-Navarro was all at sea when Lucic was avoiding committing a ton of UEs. Bouchard has this match on her racquet.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
A parlay to start the new day:
Kvitova ml/Cibulkova ml/Lisicki ml for a small bet
Kvitova vs Makarova - Once again Kvitova wins a 1st set, once again she's taken to a 3rd set (re a fitness issue I posted in TM's thread). But a rain delay hurts Makarova here. It gives the Czech the rest she needs. Whether she can use that to salvage her postion given her superior talent, I'll take a shot at the odds offered. There's no doubt in my mind her faltering in the 2nd set & beyond came because of those fitness issues, issues which cease to exist with the rain break.
Vinci vs Cibulkova - Vinci hasn't seemed right since during the French Open. Her play cost her & Errani a 2nd straight doubles title, and she struggled in the singles to put away players she should've dealt to more easily, and here in the 2nd round she again struggled to a degree not suggested on paper. Cibulkova has made 4 Slam QFs in recent years to Vinci's 1 (incl. @Wimby in '11, knocking out 1 seed Wozniacki on the way, vs. Vinci's best result being the 4th R). HtH is 4-2 Vinci (last 4 going her way), but that doesn't phase me here.
Lisicki vs Stosur - The German has gone deep at Wimbledon before, Sam hasn't, not by a looong mile. The Aussie is still a head-case, and the only ? for me is the German can sometimes start badly and simply never find her range, but she looks on song thus far. Still, I'm not inclined to back her with a straight bet here because those odds seem a tad low vs a woman with a serve & a Slam title to her name. So it's into a parlay she goes.
Kvitova ml/Cibulkova ml/Lisicki ml for a small bet
Kvitova vs Makarova - Once again Kvitova wins a 1st set, once again she's taken to a 3rd set (re a fitness issue I posted in TM's thread). But a rain delay hurts Makarova here. It gives the Czech the rest she needs. Whether she can use that to salvage her postion given her superior talent, I'll take a shot at the odds offered. There's no doubt in my mind her faltering in the 2nd set & beyond came because of those fitness issues, issues which cease to exist with the rain break.
Vinci vs Cibulkova - Vinci hasn't seemed right since during the French Open. Her play cost her & Errani a 2nd straight doubles title, and she struggled in the singles to put away players she should've dealt to more easily, and here in the 2nd round she again struggled to a degree not suggested on paper. Cibulkova has made 4 Slam QFs in recent years to Vinci's 1 (incl. @Wimby in '11, knocking out 1 seed Wozniacki on the way, vs. Vinci's best result being the 4th R). HtH is 4-2 Vinci (last 4 going her way), but that doesn't phase me here.
Lisicki vs Stosur - The German has gone deep at Wimbledon before, Sam hasn't, not by a looong mile. The Aussie is still a head-case, and the only ? for me is the German can sometimes start badly and simply never find her range, but she looks on song thus far. Still, I'm not inclined to back her with a straight bet here because those odds seem a tad low vs a woman with a serve & a Slam title to her name. So it's into a parlay she goes.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Time for some revenge.
A lot of tonight's matches are priced very similarly, yet all that looks even is not.
Kvitova vs Suarez *the fraud* Navarro
This Spanish twat ruined a parlay of mine, this is where I make up for it. I posted in TM's thread about Kvitova's stamina problems (an email of mine on the subject to the FO radio crew got read on air, my shining moment in tennis Slam history), and how this has been leading her to play a shitton of 3 setters: 11 of her last 15 matches have been 3 setters, & 9 of her last 11 matches not on clay have been 3 setters. Her last match a classic example of how this has been affecting her: up a set & 2-0, she proceded to lose 8 straight games. In other words, she's conditioned bettors not to trust her.
Here she comes up against a chick who ruined my parlay when I took Lucic. Having watched that whole match, I know the only thing she did to win it after being destoryed 6-1 in the 1st was consistently hit balls back in play; match stats show an UE count of 26-10 against Lucic over the final 2 sets. Her 1st serve was nothing frightening, even when she was reeling off 2 straight set wins.
Kvitova has a 4-1 HtH record, their sole Slam meeting (AO) on a hardcourt going 3 sets (6-2 2-6 6-4 Kvit). No meetings on grass, easily Kvitova's best surface.
I see no reason why Kvitova can't hammer here. She played brutally efficient tennis against Makarova with her back against the wall when their delayed match resumed (apart from 1 service game lapse, but that came after 4 straight game wins, more due to her needing a breather rather than her form dropping). I think she'll have the specific intention in her head to finish this match off as quickly as she finished the Russian off. Still considering whether I want to take Under 20.5 games or lay the games. I think it's beyond doubt that we benefit here with lines shorter (in the case of games laid) & longer (total games for the match) than I'd expect them to otherwise be because of her recent well known penchant for playing 3 setters. I'll be hunting Kvitova breaking Navaro's service games in live betting.
--------
(pre-match edit: Kvitova -4 games is my bet. She could lose a set 6-7 & win the other 2 by 6-2 6-3, so Games Under loses but she still covers the spread. Still expect a 2-0 sets beatdown.)
A lot of tonight's matches are priced very similarly, yet all that looks even is not.
Kvitova vs Suarez *the fraud* Navarro
This Spanish twat ruined a parlay of mine, this is where I make up for it. I posted in TM's thread about Kvitova's stamina problems (an email of mine on the subject to the FO radio crew got read on air, my shining moment in tennis Slam history), and how this has been leading her to play a shitton of 3 setters: 11 of her last 15 matches have been 3 setters, & 9 of her last 11 matches not on clay have been 3 setters. Her last match a classic example of how this has been affecting her: up a set & 2-0, she proceded to lose 8 straight games. In other words, she's conditioned bettors not to trust her.
Here she comes up against a chick who ruined my parlay when I took Lucic. Having watched that whole match, I know the only thing she did to win it after being destoryed 6-1 in the 1st was consistently hit balls back in play; match stats show an UE count of 26-10 against Lucic over the final 2 sets. Her 1st serve was nothing frightening, even when she was reeling off 2 straight set wins.
Kvitova has a 4-1 HtH record, their sole Slam meeting (AO) on a hardcourt going 3 sets (6-2 2-6 6-4 Kvit). No meetings on grass, easily Kvitova's best surface.
I see no reason why Kvitova can't hammer here. She played brutally efficient tennis against Makarova with her back against the wall when their delayed match resumed (apart from 1 service game lapse, but that came after 4 straight game wins, more due to her needing a breather rather than her form dropping). I think she'll have the specific intention in her head to finish this match off as quickly as she finished the Russian off. Still considering whether I want to take Under 20.5 games or lay the games. I think it's beyond doubt that we benefit here with lines shorter (in the case of games laid) & longer (total games for the match) than I'd expect them to otherwise be because of her recent well known penchant for playing 3 setters. I'll be hunting Kvitova breaking Navaro's service games in live betting.
--------
(pre-match edit: Kvitova -4 games is my bet. She could lose a set 6-7 & win the other 2 by 6-2 6-3, so Games Under loses but she still covers the spread. Still expect a 2-0 sets beatdown.)
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Yet more revenge...
Li Na vs Vinci
To rehash my thoughts about Vinci that I posted re the parlay she was responsible for solely ruining: Vinci hasn't seemed right since during the French Open. Her play cost her & Errani a 2nd straight doubles title, and she struggled in the singles to put away players she should've dealt to more easily, and here in the 2nd round she again struggled to a degree not suggested on paper. On paper she beat Cibulkova easily, but that match was pretty much down to 2 things: a 13-1 UE error count going Vinci's way in a 1st set which saw Cibulkova blow separate lots of BP chances, and Cibulkova blowing up when serving at 40-15 while already up 2 games to nil in the 2nd set. Nothing about that match deflected my belief Vinci isn't "all there", but I have to admit she did play her best tennis when there were BPs against her (esp. some excellent first serving).
Li Na made the Aussie Open final (& but for injuring herself prob. would have won it), then got dumped early in the French (2R). I think that works for us here, since she's typically an up & down player, and her slam trend for 2013 has clearly been up-down-...up? She made the QF here 3 years ago, but really her trend has been to do more poorly in the last 2 Slams of the year as opposed to the first 2 (AO & FO). What sticks out in this tourney is the fact against 2 capable players in the last 2 rounds, she's laid down 6-0 beatings (once after losing the 1st, once to win the 3rd). That kind of beating at points in matches where she's been clearly in danger of losing is an ominous sign for Vinci's chances here, imo. Those scorelines tell of a woman with razor sharp focus at crunchtime.
Li Na has a 2-0 HtH record: 2-6 6-4 6-0 (hc) & 6-2 6-1 (clay) scorelines.
Li Na's up & downness, her poorer form in a season's later Slams & the fact she isn't any sort of grass court specialist I think go some way to explaining her line being quite high considering Vinci has only once (@USO) made it beyond the 4th round in 35 previous Slam appearances. But matching Li Na's razor sharp play & the vulnerability I sense in Vinci's play means I see little value in an upset here. I've a 4 leg parlay that only needs Li Na to win SU to come in, so I'll only be inclined to bet more on her (in some way: laying games, or games Under, or 2-0 sets win) if Kvitova fails (given Kvit's match will end before Li Na's starts), that being because I'm convinced one (if not both) of these 2 lays a beating on their opponent.
-----
(pre-match edit: put a small bet on Li Na -3.5 games)
Li Na vs Vinci
To rehash my thoughts about Vinci that I posted re the parlay she was responsible for solely ruining: Vinci hasn't seemed right since during the French Open. Her play cost her & Errani a 2nd straight doubles title, and she struggled in the singles to put away players she should've dealt to more easily, and here in the 2nd round she again struggled to a degree not suggested on paper. On paper she beat Cibulkova easily, but that match was pretty much down to 2 things: a 13-1 UE error count going Vinci's way in a 1st set which saw Cibulkova blow separate lots of BP chances, and Cibulkova blowing up when serving at 40-15 while already up 2 games to nil in the 2nd set. Nothing about that match deflected my belief Vinci isn't "all there", but I have to admit she did play her best tennis when there were BPs against her (esp. some excellent first serving).
Li Na made the Aussie Open final (& but for injuring herself prob. would have won it), then got dumped early in the French (2R). I think that works for us here, since she's typically an up & down player, and her slam trend for 2013 has clearly been up-down-...up? She made the QF here 3 years ago, but really her trend has been to do more poorly in the last 2 Slams of the year as opposed to the first 2 (AO & FO). What sticks out in this tourney is the fact against 2 capable players in the last 2 rounds, she's laid down 6-0 beatings (once after losing the 1st, once to win the 3rd). That kind of beating at points in matches where she's been clearly in danger of losing is an ominous sign for Vinci's chances here, imo. Those scorelines tell of a woman with razor sharp focus at crunchtime.
Li Na has a 2-0 HtH record: 2-6 6-4 6-0 (hc) & 6-2 6-1 (clay) scorelines.
Li Na's up & downness, her poorer form in a season's later Slams & the fact she isn't any sort of grass court specialist I think go some way to explaining her line being quite high considering Vinci has only once (@USO) made it beyond the 4th round in 35 previous Slam appearances. But matching Li Na's razor sharp play & the vulnerability I sense in Vinci's play means I see little value in an upset here. I've a 4 leg parlay that only needs Li Na to win SU to come in, so I'll only be inclined to bet more on her (in some way: laying games, or games Under, or 2-0 sets win) if Kvitova fails (given Kvit's match will end before Li Na's starts), that being because I'm convinced one (if not both) of these 2 lays a beating on their opponent.
-----
(pre-match edit: put a small bet on Li Na -3.5 games)
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Serena vs Lisicki
Lisicki has 2 attributes most emotional midgets who face Serena don't. She has a powerful serve and she goes for winners, she's not a brick wall content to win points by waiting for her opponent make errors (the type of game Errani, Radwanska, Wozniacki, Vesnina, et al. trot out that is so futile against Serena). This means she can win the match of her own racquet, she doesn't need Serena to have a bad match in order to win the thing herself. Whether she does is obviously something else.
What stands out to me here is the game line is 18.5; since everyone under the sun thinks Serena will win in 2 sets, that means Lisicki has to win 4 games in a set for that to even have a shot of paying out the Over. Potential Under backers can always console themselves with the thought that while Lisicki might grab 4 games in 1 set, she'd still have to avoid getting done 6-2 or worse in the other set, given that in her last 10 Slam matches Serena has only once failed to win at least 1 set by a 6-2/1/0 scoreline (& that failure was in a Slam final). The moment Lisicki wins 2 games or less in the 1st set, she has to win a minimum of 5 games in the 2nd for Over to have a chance. Reading all this "on paper" makes the Over read as unattractive. It's the hold-your-nose bet here (and since they so often mirror each other, so therefore is taking Lisicki's +games), Under is clearly the easier play to make. IMO this line would be 18.0/17.5 if those in the know wanted to attract Over bets.
Serena owns a 1-0 record HtH, a 6-1 6-2 demolition 2 years ago on a hc. She was up 4-1 in another (clay) match Lisicki retired from.
I backed the Over in Serena's match with Garcia, I'll do so again here for a small bet. Lisicki's got the game, what goes on tonight will be about her head. I think she plays fearlessly, and that will feed into her being able to hit winners.
Lisicki has 2 attributes most emotional midgets who face Serena don't. She has a powerful serve and she goes for winners, she's not a brick wall content to win points by waiting for her opponent make errors (the type of game Errani, Radwanska, Wozniacki, Vesnina, et al. trot out that is so futile against Serena). This means she can win the match of her own racquet, she doesn't need Serena to have a bad match in order to win the thing herself. Whether she does is obviously something else.
What stands out to me here is the game line is 18.5; since everyone under the sun thinks Serena will win in 2 sets, that means Lisicki has to win 4 games in a set for that to even have a shot of paying out the Over. Potential Under backers can always console themselves with the thought that while Lisicki might grab 4 games in 1 set, she'd still have to avoid getting done 6-2 or worse in the other set, given that in her last 10 Slam matches Serena has only once failed to win at least 1 set by a 6-2/1/0 scoreline (& that failure was in a Slam final). The moment Lisicki wins 2 games or less in the 1st set, she has to win a minimum of 5 games in the 2nd for Over to have a chance. Reading all this "on paper" makes the Over read as unattractive. It's the hold-your-nose bet here (and since they so often mirror each other, so therefore is taking Lisicki's +games), Under is clearly the easier play to make. IMO this line would be 18.0/17.5 if those in the know wanted to attract Over bets.
Serena owns a 1-0 record HtH, a 6-1 6-2 demolition 2 years ago on a hc. She was up 4-1 in another (clay) match Lisicki retired from.
I backed the Over in Serena's match with Garcia, I'll do so again here for a small bet. Lisicki's got the game, what goes on tonight will be about her head. I think she plays fearlessly, and that will feed into her being able to hit winners.
thanks for the insight BC,
i might stay away from the ladies and ride the hands of Mannarino + Kenny de Schepper...don't see any reason why both of these frenchman can't win. Previous years have been plagued with injuries and subsequent poor results. A winter of training / learning a new grip for Mannarino has proved helpful and Kenny de Schepper is in his element at Wimbeldon. Kubot is a tough opponent on grass for Mannarino, and I wish his match was being playd after Kenny de Scheppers.
Verdasco is more of a clay player, and with KDS playing some inspired tennis I cannot pass up +430... best of luck with your plays sir.
i might stay away from the ladies and ride the hands of Mannarino + Kenny de Schepper...don't see any reason why both of these frenchman can't win. Previous years have been plagued with injuries and subsequent poor results. A winter of training / learning a new grip for Mannarino has proved helpful and Kenny de Schepper is in his element at Wimbeldon. Kubot is a tough opponent on grass for Mannarino, and I wish his match was being playd after Kenny de Scheppers.
Verdasco is more of a clay player, and with KDS playing some inspired tennis I cannot pass up +430... best of luck with your plays sir.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Robson vs Kanepi
I think Robson's hype about being a potential future "big thing" isn't necessarily misplaced, but at the moment I think she's an emotional midget, and her forehand mechanics look dodgy (she looks to swing to far out in front of her body). Kanepi played some of the best tennis I've ever seen to stave off a 2nd set-&-match loss to last year's semi-finalist Kerber (2 break pts saved when threatened with being broken to trail 3-5, and coming back from 1-5 down in the tiebreak to win 7 of the next 8 pts), form which carried over to the 3rd set (she made 3 more UEs, but hit 8 more winners). Commentators made a very interesting point about Kanepi's makeup in that match during her 2nd set tiebreak heroics, that she never (at least visibly) seems gets down on herself. Temperament mismatch is what this contest is all about imo, the inexperience and emotional midgetness both belong to one player, the player who also happens to be burdened by all the hometown expectations. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Kanepi has made 3 Slam QFs in the previous 3 years (once @Wimby), so at least for this stage of the tourney there's no inexperience concerns for her on this front. She makes it to the next round, then that question mark will have to be raised as a factor.
Gonna find a parlay for Kanepi's ml, might even tie it to Lisicki games Over (all my bets will be placed in range of the relevant matches starting: I'll post 'em in this thread).
------
(pre-match edit: parlayed Lisicki Over 18.5 games/Kanepi ml)
I think Robson's hype about being a potential future "big thing" isn't necessarily misplaced, but at the moment I think she's an emotional midget, and her forehand mechanics look dodgy (she looks to swing to far out in front of her body). Kanepi played some of the best tennis I've ever seen to stave off a 2nd set-&-match loss to last year's semi-finalist Kerber (2 break pts saved when threatened with being broken to trail 3-5, and coming back from 1-5 down in the tiebreak to win 7 of the next 8 pts), form which carried over to the 3rd set (she made 3 more UEs, but hit 8 more winners). Commentators made a very interesting point about Kanepi's makeup in that match during her 2nd set tiebreak heroics, that she never (at least visibly) seems gets down on herself. Temperament mismatch is what this contest is all about imo, the inexperience and emotional midgetness both belong to one player, the player who also happens to be burdened by all the hometown expectations. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Kanepi has made 3 Slam QFs in the previous 3 years (once @Wimby), so at least for this stage of the tourney there's no inexperience concerns for her on this front. She makes it to the next round, then that question mark will have to be raised as a factor.
Gonna find a parlay for Kanepi's ml, might even tie it to Lisicki games Over (all my bets will be placed in range of the relevant matches starting: I'll post 'em in this thread).
------
(pre-match edit: parlayed Lisicki Over 18.5 games/Kanepi ml)
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
No prob, BOL. I only concentrate on the men really only come SF time, maybe QF if something really appeals (except for live betting matches at any stage, given they offer a wider range of options, and naturally you get to gauge someone's form there & then).
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
As for the other matches -
Radwanska vs Pironkova
She made the final last year, but imo that inflates Raddy's odds here. Pironkova loves the grass, and I always favour an attacking player to knock over the "brick wall" player as long as the former can contain their UEs. Raddy owns a 9-2 HtH record, but the fly in the ointment is their only grass meeting in the last 6 years ('12) saw Pironkova kill her 6-2 6-4. Want a 4th round "value" bet? This is it (Piro ml has dropped 20 cents from its open at one of my books).
Puig vs Stephens
Inexperience should cost Puig here, this match at this stage of her career is likely to be a bridge too far. But I'm not sold on Stephen's solidity yet (couple of struggles last 2 rounds, admittedly against better players), & it's not like Puig has shown nothing to reach this point (her dismantling of Errani is the kind of form that, repeated here, could turn all game & spread expectations on their heads), so nothing stands out to me in this match apart from Stephens ml, which isn't tempting.
Flipkens vs Pennetta
Flipkens should win, but this is only her 2nd time visiting the 4th round in 19 Slam appearances (1st @Wimby). While Pennetta has also never made a Slam QF before, she's making her 6th 4th round appearance (her 3rd @Wimby). The experience factor is never something to be undersold when it comes to the later rounds in Slams, so I'll happily pass betting this match as no result would suprise.
Bartoli vs Knapp
Bartoli isn't in the best of physical shape, and hasn't put away any of her 3 opponents to date despite their being ranked 82, 70 & 93 in the world (every one of them won at least 5 games in 1 of the 2 sets played). So the fact her opponent is ranked 104 here doesn't really indicate much re what to expect. Obv. be a suprise (but not a shock) if Bartoli lost, but with the Frenchwoman not in riveting form (she also struggled at the FO w/lowly ranked players before getting hammered 2 & 1 by Schiavone, who herself is rapidly falling from the heights of form she has managed in recent years), anything else is a toss up from my pov. Bartoli could find her form here or drop her first set of the tourney, I don't care to put money behind a guess.
Radwanska vs Pironkova
She made the final last year, but imo that inflates Raddy's odds here. Pironkova loves the grass, and I always favour an attacking player to knock over the "brick wall" player as long as the former can contain their UEs. Raddy owns a 9-2 HtH record, but the fly in the ointment is their only grass meeting in the last 6 years ('12) saw Pironkova kill her 6-2 6-4. Want a 4th round "value" bet? This is it (Piro ml has dropped 20 cents from its open at one of my books).
Puig vs Stephens
Inexperience should cost Puig here, this match at this stage of her career is likely to be a bridge too far. But I'm not sold on Stephen's solidity yet (couple of struggles last 2 rounds, admittedly against better players), & it's not like Puig has shown nothing to reach this point (her dismantling of Errani is the kind of form that, repeated here, could turn all game & spread expectations on their heads), so nothing stands out to me in this match apart from Stephens ml, which isn't tempting.
Flipkens vs Pennetta
Flipkens should win, but this is only her 2nd time visiting the 4th round in 19 Slam appearances (1st @Wimby). While Pennetta has also never made a Slam QF before, she's making her 6th 4th round appearance (her 3rd @Wimby). The experience factor is never something to be undersold when it comes to the later rounds in Slams, so I'll happily pass betting this match as no result would suprise.
Bartoli vs Knapp
Bartoli isn't in the best of physical shape, and hasn't put away any of her 3 opponents to date despite their being ranked 82, 70 & 93 in the world (every one of them won at least 5 games in 1 of the 2 sets played). So the fact her opponent is ranked 104 here doesn't really indicate much re what to expect. Obv. be a suprise (but not a shock) if Bartoli lost, but with the Frenchwoman not in riveting form (she also struggled at the FO w/lowly ranked players before getting hammered 2 & 1 by Schiavone, who herself is rapidly falling from the heights of form she has managed in recent years), anything else is a toss up from my pov. Bartoli could find her form here or drop her first set of the tourney, I don't care to put money behind a guess.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
No prob, nba:cheers:
-------------------------------
My appraisal of the Quarter-Finals:
As I see it, every QF has a decisive question to it. Depending on how you answer that question decides which way you bet it. So, onto 4 questions we go...
Bartoli vs Stephens
I'll get the match I'm not interested in out of the way first. This is a hard match to call, and I see TMike has pretty much appraised why already. Inexperience but greater talent plays a journeywoman with deep experience (someone who has made a Wimby final, and while that was 6 years ago she did make another QF 2 years ago). If this was some 2nd or 3rd Round of a "fly by night" tourney, it'd be Stephens or no bet all the way as far as my pov goes. But it's not, and Stephens has the added burden now of being America's last hope (female or male) with yesterday's "shock" result. All the media attention Serena's presence in the draw deflected from Sloane suddenly gets dumped in her lap. That wouldn't matter to a more experienced pro, but a young woman who is having her narcissism fed to this degree is bad news. No matter how well grounded an individual might be at her age, it'd be tough to expect them to be unmoved by it (in a negative sense re the inertia of an outside distraction). And while Bartoli has played a string of "nobodies" and hence can be argued as to have not had the preparation for a hard a contest as Sloane will give her, Sloane herself has 4 hard matches and could well be "overcooked" (in the 1st 2 sets of her last 3 matches, she hasn't won a set by 6 games to anything. 3 lost sets, 2 tiebreak victories & a 7-5 win is the count). I've heard it said by the commentators more than once that long matches exert an accumulative effect in long tournies. Does Bartoli pay for having not really been tested (something her experience will go a long way to mitigating), or does Sloane pay for not having been able to put in a get-off-the-court-quick effort since the 1st Round ended? Just another subtext to the main question for this match.
So does experience and ease of draw win out or does talent & tough preparation? This is why you have to have live betting: see in a few games, that's all it might take to begin to glimpse the answer.
-------------------------------
My appraisal of the Quarter-Finals:
As I see it, every QF has a decisive question to it. Depending on how you answer that question decides which way you bet it. So, onto 4 questions we go...
Bartoli vs Stephens
I'll get the match I'm not interested in out of the way first. This is a hard match to call, and I see TMike has pretty much appraised why already. Inexperience but greater talent plays a journeywoman with deep experience (someone who has made a Wimby final, and while that was 6 years ago she did make another QF 2 years ago). If this was some 2nd or 3rd Round of a "fly by night" tourney, it'd be Stephens or no bet all the way as far as my pov goes. But it's not, and Stephens has the added burden now of being America's last hope (female or male) with yesterday's "shock" result. All the media attention Serena's presence in the draw deflected from Sloane suddenly gets dumped in her lap. That wouldn't matter to a more experienced pro, but a young woman who is having her narcissism fed to this degree is bad news. No matter how well grounded an individual might be at her age, it'd be tough to expect them to be unmoved by it (in a negative sense re the inertia of an outside distraction). And while Bartoli has played a string of "nobodies" and hence can be argued as to have not had the preparation for a hard a contest as Sloane will give her, Sloane herself has 4 hard matches and could well be "overcooked" (in the 1st 2 sets of her last 3 matches, she hasn't won a set by 6 games to anything. 3 lost sets, 2 tiebreak victories & a 7-5 win is the count). I've heard it said by the commentators more than once that long matches exert an accumulative effect in long tournies. Does Bartoli pay for having not really been tested (something her experience will go a long way to mitigating), or does Sloane pay for not having been able to put in a get-off-the-court-quick effort since the 1st Round ended? Just another subtext to the main question for this match.
So does experience and ease of draw win out or does talent & tough preparation? This is why you have to have live betting: see in a few games, that's all it might take to begin to glimpse the answer.
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Radwanska vs Li Na
What we have here is a routine match-up in the WTA. A brick wall plays a player committed to attack. It's my standard appraisal that as long as the attacking player can contain her UE count (not beat herself), then she's going to come out on top. Examples of this having been the case in this tourney are already multiple: Wozniacki lost to Cetkovska (10-13/6-30), Vesinina lost to Lisicki (17-10/10-24), Errani lost to Puig (15-17/13-38), Suarez-Navarro lost to Kvitova (10-23/12-21) - the numbers in brackets being UEs/Winners. Every brick waller but 1 committed less UEs but at the same time got killed on the winner count. Vesnina was the exception for the UEs because Lisicki had her under pressure so early her game just collapsed, another advantage the attacking player has: if they get out too far too early, the brick waller is forced to try and play a different game in order to try and catch up, and it usually fails miserably. Taken out of their comfort zone and into one they don't have the weapons for? Disaster.
There's also a "sub-question" to the main question, and as I see it it's that Li Na easily has the Slam experience advantage here. This is her 6th Slam QF since 2010. She's gone onto make 4 SFs & from there 3 Finals from those previous 5 QFs. This is also Raddy's 6 QF since 2010. Last year's Wimby final was the only time she advanced beyond this stage. Further, it was the only time in 8 previous Slam QFs for her to get beyond this stage: who did she play in that QF last year to break her duck? A woman who in her own previous 34 Slams had only made 2 QFs & never ventured beyond the 3rd Round of Wimby (& in facing Kerber in the SF, also faced significant Slam inexperience). In other words, a fortunate draw delivering major inexperience into her lap was a major factor in her breaking her QF hoodoo. Li Na is obv. no such similar bearer of such Slam inexperience. I mentioned in my preview to Li Na's Vinci match that she has sustained razor sharp play in at least 1 set in every match so far, a fact that seems to play into her being on an upswing of form for this tourney, after she made the AO final (up) and then failed early in the French (down).
So the only question to be answered for this match imo is, will Li Na beat herself? if she does, it won't happen by way of any inexperience coming to the surface. I've live betting for this one, and am thinking about the Over.
What we have here is a routine match-up in the WTA. A brick wall plays a player committed to attack. It's my standard appraisal that as long as the attacking player can contain her UE count (not beat herself), then she's going to come out on top. Examples of this having been the case in this tourney are already multiple: Wozniacki lost to Cetkovska (10-13/6-30), Vesinina lost to Lisicki (17-10/10-24), Errani lost to Puig (15-17/13-38), Suarez-Navarro lost to Kvitova (10-23/12-21) - the numbers in brackets being UEs/Winners. Every brick waller but 1 committed less UEs but at the same time got killed on the winner count. Vesnina was the exception for the UEs because Lisicki had her under pressure so early her game just collapsed, another advantage the attacking player has: if they get out too far too early, the brick waller is forced to try and play a different game in order to try and catch up, and it usually fails miserably. Taken out of their comfort zone and into one they don't have the weapons for? Disaster.
There's also a "sub-question" to the main question, and as I see it it's that Li Na easily has the Slam experience advantage here. This is her 6th Slam QF since 2010. She's gone onto make 4 SFs & from there 3 Finals from those previous 5 QFs. This is also Raddy's 6 QF since 2010. Last year's Wimby final was the only time she advanced beyond this stage. Further, it was the only time in 8 previous Slam QFs for her to get beyond this stage: who did she play in that QF last year to break her duck? A woman who in her own previous 34 Slams had only made 2 QFs & never ventured beyond the 3rd Round of Wimby (& in facing Kerber in the SF, also faced significant Slam inexperience). In other words, a fortunate draw delivering major inexperience into her lap was a major factor in her breaking her QF hoodoo. Li Na is obv. no such similar bearer of such Slam inexperience. I mentioned in my preview to Li Na's Vinci match that she has sustained razor sharp play in at least 1 set in every match so far, a fact that seems to play into her being on an upswing of form for this tourney, after she made the AO final (up) and then failed early in the French (down).
So the only question to be answered for this match imo is, will Li Na beat herself? if she does, it won't happen by way of any inexperience coming to the surface. I've live betting for this one, and am thinking about the Over.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Kvitova vs Klipkens
Kvitova is off a 2 set match? Holy hell, right games Over it is since it's impossible she plays 2 straight 2 setters, right? Problem is, Flipkens could win 2-0 and hence deliver the Under. Great. The question for this match as I see it is this: Do we see the Kvitova that destroyed Makarova in the early stages of that match and when her back was to the wall after its resumption? Or do we see the Kvitova whose left handed serve was the major reason she defeated a non-grass court specialist in her 4th round match, because otherwise her overall ground game was so up-&-down. Her fitness issues shouldn't be news to anybody by now, her gut has a noticable bulge to it (& she looks to be a naturally thick set woman anyway). On the other side of the net, this is Flipkens first Slam QF appearance in 19 tries (first time past the 3R at Wimby, clearly a beneficiary of all the early upsets), which is not good news for those hunting an upset (you always want to have some deep Slam experience in the dog you're looking to back).
So I see this match taking 2 likely courses: If Kvitty brings her A-game then it gets bad quickly for Flipkens - a fast start by Kvitty could well play into her opponent imploding. If Kvitty isn't on, then while we could see a "shock" 2-0 Flipkens win I think that the latter's own inexperience here mitigates against such a result, more likely we see a 3 setter & the 3rd goes to whoever doesn't choke (GL with picking who). This is another of the later matches, still getting my head around there being any pre-match approach. If the first 2 QFs are close affairs, then my pov will shift to 1 of that latter QFs being a trouncing & that's more likely to be this one than Bartoli/Stephens.
Kvitova is off a 2 set match? Holy hell, right games Over it is since it's impossible she plays 2 straight 2 setters, right? Problem is, Flipkens could win 2-0 and hence deliver the Under. Great. The question for this match as I see it is this: Do we see the Kvitova that destroyed Makarova in the early stages of that match and when her back was to the wall after its resumption? Or do we see the Kvitova whose left handed serve was the major reason she defeated a non-grass court specialist in her 4th round match, because otherwise her overall ground game was so up-&-down. Her fitness issues shouldn't be news to anybody by now, her gut has a noticable bulge to it (& she looks to be a naturally thick set woman anyway). On the other side of the net, this is Flipkens first Slam QF appearance in 19 tries (first time past the 3R at Wimby, clearly a beneficiary of all the early upsets), which is not good news for those hunting an upset (you always want to have some deep Slam experience in the dog you're looking to back).
So I see this match taking 2 likely courses: If Kvitty brings her A-game then it gets bad quickly for Flipkens - a fast start by Kvitty could well play into her opponent imploding. If Kvitty isn't on, then while we could see a "shock" 2-0 Flipkens win I think that the latter's own inexperience here mitigates against such a result, more likely we see a 3 setter & the 3rd goes to whoever doesn't choke (GL with picking who). This is another of the later matches, still getting my head around there being any pre-match approach. If the first 2 QFs are close affairs, then my pov will shift to 1 of that latter QFs being a trouncing & that's more likely to be this one than Bartoli/Stephens.
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Lisicki vs Kanepi
Others have stated it, the major question in the air here is how well does Lisicki bounce back after yesterday? Lisicki has made a Wimby SF before, she's beaten big names around this stage of the tourney before (Serena far from being her first), so dealing with post match elation not getting the better of her isn't new territory she's having to navigate. Yesterday is the kind of result that could just as well steel her nerve to such a degree she literally steamrolls to the title on the back of play that no longer knows any fear, as much as it could lead to a big letdown here.
What about her opponent? Kanepi is playing her 5th QF in her 27th Slam appearance: She's never made a SF. She played fantastic to beat Kerber, but it was precisely because she was getting trounced at the time she had to play so well to get by last year's semi-finalist. Other than that scalp, she really hasn't beaten anyone of note, struggling with Robson more than I actually thought she would.
I favour Lisicki to get by in 2 tough sets that could deliver either U/O & either spread. I'll pass; if she gets through with flying colours then I'll back her without hesitation vs. either Li Na or Raddy.
Others have stated it, the major question in the air here is how well does Lisicki bounce back after yesterday? Lisicki has made a Wimby SF before, she's beaten big names around this stage of the tourney before (Serena far from being her first), so dealing with post match elation not getting the better of her isn't new territory she's having to navigate. Yesterday is the kind of result that could just as well steel her nerve to such a degree she literally steamrolls to the title on the back of play that no longer knows any fear, as much as it could lead to a big letdown here.
What about her opponent? Kanepi is playing her 5th QF in her 27th Slam appearance: She's never made a SF. She played fantastic to beat Kerber, but it was precisely because she was getting trounced at the time she had to play so well to get by last year's semi-finalist. Other than that scalp, she really hasn't beaten anyone of note, struggling with Robson more than I actually thought she would.
I favour Lisicki to get by in 2 tough sets that could deliver either U/O & either spread. I'll pass; if she gets through with flying colours then I'll back her without hesitation vs. either Li Na or Raddy.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
I'm sticking with live betting for the early matches.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
I've put a small bet on Bartoli to win the 1st set.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
My take on the WTA semi-finals -
Bartoli vs Flipkens
What we have here is pretty much a battle of 2 brick wallers. So what stands out as separating these 2, to base a pick on for this match?
Both of these players have had kind draw to this point (barring Flipkens having to get by Kvitova, easily the highest quality opponent either player here has had tom navigate), so there's not a whole lot to read into the fact neither dropped a set to those much lower ranked players (Bartoli's 1 exception ranking wise was obv. Stephens otherwise the next lowest ranking she faced was 73), Flipkens other exception was Jovanovski (39th - no grass pedigree at all) otherwise the next highest ranking she faced was 90. So there matches before the QFs don't really betray much, from my pov. As for the QFs...
Bartoli was undoubtedly fortunate to be get an inexperienced player off 3 straight 3 setters. After losing a tough 1st set, the 2nd set proved to be a bridge too far for Stephens, winning only a very poor 29% of her 1st serve pts (77% in 1st set) and wholly pathetic 8% of her 2nd serve points (33% in 1st set). As much as one must credit Bartoli for the pressure she generated which obv. helped manifest those stats, they reek of Sloane falling apart (& she certainly sprayed enough balls at important times to suggest nothing less happened). As for Bartoli, the fact she maintained her 1st serve ratio throughout (1st - 56% in, 63% won/2nd - 59% in, 64% won) was where she won the match, because her 2nd serve wins fell right off between sets (80% 1st set, 20% 2nd set: cue that break-a-thon we witnessed).
There's no doubt stat wise were Flipkens beat Kvitty: a minuscule 5 UEs complemented her 23 winners (+18). Kvitty wasn't bad herself (28 UEs, 41 Winners for +13), but the key stat there was she hit 20 winners in the 1st set, only 21 over the next 2 sets. The kind of pressure Kvitty generated early on against Flipkens wasn't sustained for nearly long enough. Whereas while she was under that 1st set pressure, Flipkens hit only 6 winners. As that pressure eased, she hit almost thrice as many (17) over the next 2 sets. There were no real dramatic improvements or drop off of serving stats (unlike in Bartoli's QF), so they add nothing to the story. But of course there was one other element to this QF: the fact Kvitty woke up sick and didn't warm up at any stage before taking the court, and needing the attention of a doctor early in the 2nd. Whether it was her asthma playing up or the sickness was related to something else, the stats indicate she wasn't the same afterwards. This can be seen via the following breakdown:
1st set. (10 games): 20 winners, 13 UEs - 1.54 winners per UE
2nd set (19 games): 21 winners, 15 UEs - 1.40 winners per UE
On the surface it doesn't look that bad at all, since fall off is a wholly minor 0.14 winners (& since a rate of 1.54 was good enough to win the 1st, then 1.40 should've been good enough to win at least 1 of the next 2 sets). But the thing to look at here is the simply the pure rate of winners she hit: 2.0 per game in the 1st set vs. 1.10 per game over the 2nd & 3rd sets. Combine that with her UEs rate similarly dropping, and the picture starts to become clear that the moment Kvitty had the injury break, she stopped playing her normal game (going for winners). The moment that happened, she released the pressure on Flipkens her natural game generated, and in that space Flipkens found her own offense and hence her winners rate went up (from 0.6 per game in the 1st set, to 0.89 per game for 2 straight sets).
So, my take: If Flipkens had beaten Kvitty "off her own racquet", then I'd have no choice but to downplay the ground she must give way to Bartoli when it comes to the Slam experience stakes, and side with her based on sheer form being the key factor in play. Instead, my concerns for her are as follows:
(1) the fact Kvitty clearly ceased to (be able to?) play her normal game (the game that won her the 1st set) means I have to undersell the fact of who Flipkens beat in the QFs.
(2) the fact Flipkens is off a basically unrepeatable 5 UE effort (she committed 20 UEs in her previous match of 22 games, almost identical to Bartoli's 21 UEs in 22 games vs Stephens) means she's heading for a dip, the question is just how low will that dip go?
(3) the fact Flipkens celebrated the match like she'd won the final, whereas Bartoli walked straight off the court barely acknowledging the crowd, speaks volumes about the importance of having deep Slam experience when it comes to conserving energy at this stage of the tourney. As far as the attention goes for making a SF here, nothing new for Bartoli whereas the Belgian media will be all over Flipkens, no doubt babbling on about her taking over the mantle of Henin & Clijsters. The day's break between QFs & SFs only adds to this aspect being so important. The inexperienced player can so easily spend too much energy on the media's massaging of her ego, and suddenly find come a future 3rd set she has nothing left.
So, despite being unable to read much at all into where Bartoli really is because of her easy run in, my focus on what to bet here is/will be through the lens of expecting her to come through. Certainly I can see the average bettor lining up to take plus odds on the chick who beat a Wimby winner from just 2 years back, comforted by the fact their sleek player only has to knock off an ungainly looking fatty who has beaten almost absolutely no one. Still, that doesn't mean I can't see Flipkens possibly winning since she might navigate the newness of this experience (in 18 previous Slams, she'd never even made a QF before) to a greater degree than I expect her to (she is 27 after all, not late teens/early 20s), and it could well be that Bartoli has pulled a smoke & mirrors job to this point (she beat Stephens fair & square in the 1st set, thou how much was down to the rain break helping her, who knows; but the 2nd set was clearly an implosion by Sloane), and she falls over in the face of the first decent & generally experienced player she faces.
So, I fancy Bartoli to get through (likely in 3) but I think the HtH odds should be much closer so I'm going to go with live betting regarding SU action, tossing around betting the Over pre-match.
Bartoli vs Flipkens
What we have here is pretty much a battle of 2 brick wallers. So what stands out as separating these 2, to base a pick on for this match?
Both of these players have had kind draw to this point (barring Flipkens having to get by Kvitova, easily the highest quality opponent either player here has had tom navigate), so there's not a whole lot to read into the fact neither dropped a set to those much lower ranked players (Bartoli's 1 exception ranking wise was obv. Stephens otherwise the next lowest ranking she faced was 73), Flipkens other exception was Jovanovski (39th - no grass pedigree at all) otherwise the next highest ranking she faced was 90. So there matches before the QFs don't really betray much, from my pov. As for the QFs...
Bartoli was undoubtedly fortunate to be get an inexperienced player off 3 straight 3 setters. After losing a tough 1st set, the 2nd set proved to be a bridge too far for Stephens, winning only a very poor 29% of her 1st serve pts (77% in 1st set) and wholly pathetic 8% of her 2nd serve points (33% in 1st set). As much as one must credit Bartoli for the pressure she generated which obv. helped manifest those stats, they reek of Sloane falling apart (& she certainly sprayed enough balls at important times to suggest nothing less happened). As for Bartoli, the fact she maintained her 1st serve ratio throughout (1st - 56% in, 63% won/2nd - 59% in, 64% won) was where she won the match, because her 2nd serve wins fell right off between sets (80% 1st set, 20% 2nd set: cue that break-a-thon we witnessed).
There's no doubt stat wise were Flipkens beat Kvitty: a minuscule 5 UEs complemented her 23 winners (+18). Kvitty wasn't bad herself (28 UEs, 41 Winners for +13), but the key stat there was she hit 20 winners in the 1st set, only 21 over the next 2 sets. The kind of pressure Kvitty generated early on against Flipkens wasn't sustained for nearly long enough. Whereas while she was under that 1st set pressure, Flipkens hit only 6 winners. As that pressure eased, she hit almost thrice as many (17) over the next 2 sets. There were no real dramatic improvements or drop off of serving stats (unlike in Bartoli's QF), so they add nothing to the story. But of course there was one other element to this QF: the fact Kvitty woke up sick and didn't warm up at any stage before taking the court, and needing the attention of a doctor early in the 2nd. Whether it was her asthma playing up or the sickness was related to something else, the stats indicate she wasn't the same afterwards. This can be seen via the following breakdown:
1st set. (10 games): 20 winners, 13 UEs - 1.54 winners per UE
2nd set (19 games): 21 winners, 15 UEs - 1.40 winners per UE
On the surface it doesn't look that bad at all, since fall off is a wholly minor 0.14 winners (& since a rate of 1.54 was good enough to win the 1st, then 1.40 should've been good enough to win at least 1 of the next 2 sets). But the thing to look at here is the simply the pure rate of winners she hit: 2.0 per game in the 1st set vs. 1.10 per game over the 2nd & 3rd sets. Combine that with her UEs rate similarly dropping, and the picture starts to become clear that the moment Kvitty had the injury break, she stopped playing her normal game (going for winners). The moment that happened, she released the pressure on Flipkens her natural game generated, and in that space Flipkens found her own offense and hence her winners rate went up (from 0.6 per game in the 1st set, to 0.89 per game for 2 straight sets).
So, my take: If Flipkens had beaten Kvitty "off her own racquet", then I'd have no choice but to downplay the ground she must give way to Bartoli when it comes to the Slam experience stakes, and side with her based on sheer form being the key factor in play. Instead, my concerns for her are as follows:
(1) the fact Kvitty clearly ceased to (be able to?) play her normal game (the game that won her the 1st set) means I have to undersell the fact of who Flipkens beat in the QFs.
(2) the fact Flipkens is off a basically unrepeatable 5 UE effort (she committed 20 UEs in her previous match of 22 games, almost identical to Bartoli's 21 UEs in 22 games vs Stephens) means she's heading for a dip, the question is just how low will that dip go?
(3) the fact Flipkens celebrated the match like she'd won the final, whereas Bartoli walked straight off the court barely acknowledging the crowd, speaks volumes about the importance of having deep Slam experience when it comes to conserving energy at this stage of the tourney. As far as the attention goes for making a SF here, nothing new for Bartoli whereas the Belgian media will be all over Flipkens, no doubt babbling on about her taking over the mantle of Henin & Clijsters. The day's break between QFs & SFs only adds to this aspect being so important. The inexperienced player can so easily spend too much energy on the media's massaging of her ego, and suddenly find come a future 3rd set she has nothing left.
So, despite being unable to read much at all into where Bartoli really is because of her easy run in, my focus on what to bet here is/will be through the lens of expecting her to come through. Certainly I can see the average bettor lining up to take plus odds on the chick who beat a Wimby winner from just 2 years back, comforted by the fact their sleek player only has to knock off an ungainly looking fatty who has beaten almost absolutely no one. Still, that doesn't mean I can't see Flipkens possibly winning since she might navigate the newness of this experience (in 18 previous Slams, she'd never even made a QF before) to a greater degree than I expect her to (she is 27 after all, not late teens/early 20s), and it could well be that Bartoli has pulled a smoke & mirrors job to this point (she beat Stephens fair & square in the 1st set, thou how much was down to the rain break helping her, who knows; but the 2nd set was clearly an implosion by Sloane), and she falls over in the face of the first decent & generally experienced player she faces.
So, I fancy Bartoli to get through (likely in 3) but I think the HtH odds should be much closer so I'm going to go with live betting regarding SU action, tossing around betting the Over pre-match.
Last edited:
Toronto_Mike
Scent of a Woman
Good Luck bc either way the winner with these two will lose to aggie or Sabine
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Just going with live for the Future-Finals-Loser SF, TM. BOL your way:cheers:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Lisicki vs Radwanska
A repeat of the styles seen in Raddy's 4thR & QF matches, therefore time for a little copy & pasting...
What we have here is a routine match-up in the WTA. A brick wall plays a player committed to attack. It's my standard appraisal that as long as the attacking player can contain her UE count (not beat herself), then she's going to come out on top. Examples of this having been the case in this tourney are already multiple: Wozniacki lost to Cetkovska (10-13/6-30), Vesinina lost to Lisicki (17-10/10-24), Errani lost to Puig (15-17/13-38), Suarez-Navarro lost to Kvitova (10-23/12-21) - the numbers in brackets being UEs/Winners. Every brick waller but 1 committed less UEs but at the same time got killed on the winner count. Vesnina was the exception for the UEs because Lisicki had her under pressure so early her game ended up collapsing, something that evidences another advantage the attacking player has: if they get out too far too early, the brick waller is forced to try and play a different game in order to try and catch up, and it usually fails miserably. Taken out of their comfort zone and into one they don't have the weapons for? Disaster.
Undoubtedly the biggest factor related to answering the question of whether Lisicki can avoid beating herself, is the experience factor. I would frame the question to pose on this front as follows: Has Lisicki paid her dues to pull off a Wimby SF win and - considering the quality on display in the other SF - basically set up her first Slam title?
Out of all 4 Slams, there's no question about the fact Lisicki is on her best surface here. In 15 appearances in the 3 other Slam surfaces combined, she's never made a QF. In her 5th Wimby here she's made her 3rd QF appearance and is making her 2nd SF appearance. In her last 3 Wimbies she beaten Wozniacki, Kuznetsova (fresh off a French Open win), Li Na (fresh off a French Open win) & Sharapova (fresh off a French Open win), and in this year's tourney alone has beaten 3 previous Slam winners (Schiavone, Stosur & Serena). To my mind there's no question about any further dues "being owed". I stated before her QF match that beating Serena could just as likely have steeled her to feel unbeatable/to no longer fear feeling fear, as it could have made her vulnerable to a letdown. Her quick dismissal of Kanepi (a woman who played some of the best tennis I've ever watched to beat Kerber in the 3R) suggests nothing less than her having been steeled by that fantastic result.
As far as Radwanska goes, she's off 3 tough 3 setters, and self-admittedly it's taken a toll on her physically. I think the fact she's had to work so hard in so many recent matches (hasn't managed a get-off-the-court-quick effort like Lisicki did vs. Kanepi), counts significantly against her here. While Raddy won their most previous encounter 6-2 6-1 ('12, on hc), just remember Serena had beaten Lisicki in their most recent encounter 6-2 6-1 prior to their 4R match.
I expect the 1st set winner to win the match, but on balance I expect a 3 setter - I struggle to see either player here winning 2 straight sets (don't envisage Lisicki fallng over to the degree needed for that to happen), so I'm looking at the Over pre-match, and be hunting the German HtH live.
A repeat of the styles seen in Raddy's 4thR & QF matches, therefore time for a little copy & pasting...
What we have here is a routine match-up in the WTA. A brick wall plays a player committed to attack. It's my standard appraisal that as long as the attacking player can contain her UE count (not beat herself), then she's going to come out on top. Examples of this having been the case in this tourney are already multiple: Wozniacki lost to Cetkovska (10-13/6-30), Vesinina lost to Lisicki (17-10/10-24), Errani lost to Puig (15-17/13-38), Suarez-Navarro lost to Kvitova (10-23/12-21) - the numbers in brackets being UEs/Winners. Every brick waller but 1 committed less UEs but at the same time got killed on the winner count. Vesnina was the exception for the UEs because Lisicki had her under pressure so early her game ended up collapsing, something that evidences another advantage the attacking player has: if they get out too far too early, the brick waller is forced to try and play a different game in order to try and catch up, and it usually fails miserably. Taken out of their comfort zone and into one they don't have the weapons for? Disaster.
Undoubtedly the biggest factor related to answering the question of whether Lisicki can avoid beating herself, is the experience factor. I would frame the question to pose on this front as follows: Has Lisicki paid her dues to pull off a Wimby SF win and - considering the quality on display in the other SF - basically set up her first Slam title?
Out of all 4 Slams, there's no question about the fact Lisicki is on her best surface here. In 15 appearances in the 3 other Slam surfaces combined, she's never made a QF. In her 5th Wimby here she's made her 3rd QF appearance and is making her 2nd SF appearance. In her last 3 Wimbies she beaten Wozniacki, Kuznetsova (fresh off a French Open win), Li Na (fresh off a French Open win) & Sharapova (fresh off a French Open win), and in this year's tourney alone has beaten 3 previous Slam winners (Schiavone, Stosur & Serena). To my mind there's no question about any further dues "being owed". I stated before her QF match that beating Serena could just as likely have steeled her to feel unbeatable/to no longer fear feeling fear, as it could have made her vulnerable to a letdown. Her quick dismissal of Kanepi (a woman who played some of the best tennis I've ever watched to beat Kerber in the 3R) suggests nothing less than her having been steeled by that fantastic result.
As far as Radwanska goes, she's off 3 tough 3 setters, and self-admittedly it's taken a toll on her physically. I think the fact she's had to work so hard in so many recent matches (hasn't managed a get-off-the-court-quick effort like Lisicki did vs. Kanepi), counts significantly against her here. While Raddy won their most previous encounter 6-2 6-1 ('12, on hc), just remember Serena had beaten Lisicki in their most recent encounter 6-2 6-1 prior to their 4R match.
I expect the 1st set winner to win the match, but on balance I expect a 3 setter - I struggle to see either player here winning 2 straight sets (don't envisage Lisicki fallng over to the degree needed for that to happen), so I'm looking at the Over pre-match, and be hunting the German HtH live.
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Lisicki vs Radwanska: small bet on Over 22.5
Only a small bet because I can see it being possible Lisicki doing a number of Raddy given the latter, like Sloane Stephens before facing Bartoli, is off 3 tough 3 setters, and if she loses the 1st she could go downhill quick, but I wouldn't expect that to happen (her losing the 1st, I'd expect her to empty her tank winning the 2nd, and have little left for the 3rd cue Lisicki romping home). If Raddy had had 1 quick 'n easy recent match, then I'd fully expect both women to win a set here, and I'd bet more. I don't fear Raddy winning 2-0, which isn't to say it isn't possible. If it happens, then I've simply read this match wrong.
Only a small bet because I can see it being possible Lisicki doing a number of Raddy given the latter, like Sloane Stephens before facing Bartoli, is off 3 tough 3 setters, and if she loses the 1st she could go downhill quick, but I wouldn't expect that to happen (her losing the 1st, I'd expect her to empty her tank winning the 2nd, and have little left for the 3rd cue Lisicki romping home). If Raddy had had 1 quick 'n easy recent match, then I'd fully expect both women to win a set here, and I'd bet more. I don't fear Raddy winning 2-0, which isn't to say it isn't possible. If it happens, then I've simply read this match wrong.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Pinny's lines for the final
Bartoli +200
Lisicki -3.5
U/O 21.5
Bartoli +200
Lisicki -3.5
U/O 21.5
View attachment 31704
Nice shot of Fatoli after her win...likely her favorite position. Sorry if this should have been posted in the NSFW area...
Nice shot of Fatoli after her win...likely her favorite position. Sorry if this should have been posted in the NSFW area...
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
:cheers:haha, that's what Lisicki will leave her looking like after her first service game in the final.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Still to do my homework for the final, twink. But if you wanna bet the final, then imo you'll be looking to bet Lsicki in same way, shape or form.
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
My Women's Final thoughts -
Lisicki vs Humpty Dumpty's Wife
Yet again we have a brick waller facing an attacking player, thou to be fair to Fatty her game has a bit more to it's attacking arsenal those most of the grinders I've mentioned in previous write-ups, so it's not the kind of pure BW/AP match-up we saw in Lisicki's SF vs Raddy (that said, Raddy's brick wall game is much superior to Bartoli's).
My major concern for finals deals with the intangibles, specifically on 2 fronts: the experience angle and the "dues paid" angle.
(1) The experience angle: Obviously the immediate facts on paper says this angle goes to Bartoli. This is her 2nd Slam final (her 2nd Wimby final), and she's been around the block at 28 years of age (30 on October 2nd), appearing in her 47th Slam. Lisicki is making her first Slam final appearance, is only 22 years of age (23 on Sept. 22nd), and is appearing in only her 20th Slam. But dig a little deeper, and you begin to find what undercuts Bartoli's advantage on this front.
Bartoli only made her first Slam QF (went onto make the F) in her 23rd Slam appearance Furthermore, in her next 12 Slam appearances, Bartoli only made 1 further QF, where she lost: so in her first 35 Slam appearances, she made all of 2 QFs winning 1. This is only Lisicki's 20th Slam appearance, and she's already made 4 QFs, & from there 2 SFs (obv. winning 1). So by any standard, Lisicki is clearly the faster maturer of the 2 in term's of wedding her sheer tennis talent to learning how to win in the biggest tournaments on tour (since talent alone doesn't achieve that: just ask Janowicz after last night's effort vs Murray). You have to learn how to win (the real point where the experience angle comes to bear), and Lisicki's career stats shows she's amongst the faster learners. What can't be ignored, thou, is the fact that Lisicki's positive Slam returns are all at Wimbledon: she's yet to make a QF appearance on any other Slam surface. So her learning-to-win education could almost be said to be on steroids when it comes to grass vs the other 2 Slam surfaces. Bartoli only made her 3rd Wimby QF this year out of 11 total appearances. Lisicki's made her 4th QF here in 5 total appearances. Lisicki's propensity to be a fast learner on this surface undercuts Marion's greater experience on this surface. If this was a clay or hardcourt Slam final, then at this point in their careers there's no way I'd be liking Sabine to be anything other than a toss up vs Marion. But this is grass, and Sabine has taken to a surface she's allergic to like a fish to water.
Finally, having the experience advantage usually means the age factor isnt on your side. The only women in the modern era of WTA tennis (1980 onwards) to win their first Slam aged 28 or older have been...
Novotna in 1998's Wimbledon (29)
Schiavone in 2010's French Open (29, almost 30)
Li Na in 2011's French Open (29)
The French Open I care less about, since the slower surface plays into not hurting older, slightly less physically capable players as much as faster surfaces. That leaves Marion trying to do something only Jana Novotna has done in the last 33 1/2 years, and Novotna in '98 was...
- making her 2nd straight Wimby final
- had made her 8th GS SF on the way to the final (Marion here has only made her 2nd Slam SF)
- was making her 4th Slam F appearance (only Marion's 2nd here)
- was making her 3rd Wimby F in 6 years
- and of course by all rights it should've been Novotna's 2nd Wimby F win, since nobody can surely be ignorant of her monumental meltdown to Graf in a '93 final she had all but won at said point.
Marion is pushing against some serious history on a surface like this.
(2) The "dues paid" angle: For 1-off finals, I'm always partial to first believing in the those who has done the most work to make said final, be it a team or individual. Take last year's mlb WS: there's no contest between who paid more dues to qualify. SF came from 0-2 down vs. Cincy, and 1-3 down vs. Saint Louis. While they hugely benefited from important injuries to both their NL opponents, they still had to go out and win some tough games to make sure they cashed in on those injuries. Meanwhile Detroit benefited from facing a toothless version of the Yankees (who, in hindsight, were never capable of testing them), and an Oakland team with huge offensive holes, holes which meant in their series deciding 5th game Oakland simply wasn't capable of asking any questions of Verlander or Detroit. In realising SF "won" this "dues paid" angle, I still personally thought they benefited too much from those injuries to their NL opponents and so I undersold their "winning" this "dues paid" front. Clearly what then unfolded showed that to be an error on my part.
So, who has paid their immediate dues to get here? It's almost a comical joke. Lisicki has beaten 4 previous Slam finalists (Radwanska +...) and 3 Slam winners (Schiavone, Stosur, Serena) to get here, and if that wasn't enough beat 2 other accomplished enough players in her other 2 matches (Vesnina ranked 22, and Kanepi ranked 46). Bartoli has beaten a string of nobodies (only 2 ranked above 73: 20 & 22), and the best of them, Sloane Stephens, is really is only going to be a somebody in the future; at present she's still learning how to win (& it's arguable whether grass, as opposed to hardcourts, will even be her best surface, as it unarguably is for Lisicki).
But there is a second layer to the "dues" question, and that's where matters are much more even. As already stated, Lisicki has made 3 QFs (& 1 SF) in her previous 4 Wimby appearances. On the "historical dues" front, she's put in the effort in previous Wimby's to have "earnt" a F place here. Bartoli's 3 best previous efforts at Wimby had been a F, a QF & a 4R (all over the past 6 years), so in recent times it must be said she's applied herself enough that it's fitting she be the one player to benefit from all the upsets which occurred in the bottom half of the draw. I don't think it can be argued either player here, from this angle, is an unworthy finalist (unlike, say, would immediately have been something able to be leveled at Flipkens, had she made it through). Still, we all know Marion isn't here if Azarenka, Sharapova & Kvitova weren't all knocked out "before their time". We also know Sabine has beaten a string of players who in their totality are just as good as those Marion fortunately never got to face.
I've got 2 parlays that need Lisicki's ml to come in (1 to finish off, 1 still also needs to Joker ml), so I'll only be looking to bet live at this point. Don't necessarily think this is a whitewash, nor do I think it's "impossible" (or rather, improbable) that Lisicki loses, but if she does it will be because she's beaten herself, not because she played like she can and Bartoli has taken that and proved a match for it. Nothing in her 3 struggles with Stosur, Serena & Radwanska suggests that lesser, choker version of Sabine still has a large say in her psychological make-up. But you never know.
Lisicki vs Humpty Dumpty's Wife
Yet again we have a brick waller facing an attacking player, thou to be fair to Fatty her game has a bit more to it's attacking arsenal those most of the grinders I've mentioned in previous write-ups, so it's not the kind of pure BW/AP match-up we saw in Lisicki's SF vs Raddy (that said, Raddy's brick wall game is much superior to Bartoli's).
My major concern for finals deals with the intangibles, specifically on 2 fronts: the experience angle and the "dues paid" angle.
(1) The experience angle: Obviously the immediate facts on paper says this angle goes to Bartoli. This is her 2nd Slam final (her 2nd Wimby final), and she's been around the block at 28 years of age (30 on October 2nd), appearing in her 47th Slam. Lisicki is making her first Slam final appearance, is only 22 years of age (23 on Sept. 22nd), and is appearing in only her 20th Slam. But dig a little deeper, and you begin to find what undercuts Bartoli's advantage on this front.
Bartoli only made her first Slam QF (went onto make the F) in her 23rd Slam appearance Furthermore, in her next 12 Slam appearances, Bartoli only made 1 further QF, where she lost: so in her first 35 Slam appearances, she made all of 2 QFs winning 1. This is only Lisicki's 20th Slam appearance, and she's already made 4 QFs, & from there 2 SFs (obv. winning 1). So by any standard, Lisicki is clearly the faster maturer of the 2 in term's of wedding her sheer tennis talent to learning how to win in the biggest tournaments on tour (since talent alone doesn't achieve that: just ask Janowicz after last night's effort vs Murray). You have to learn how to win (the real point where the experience angle comes to bear), and Lisicki's career stats shows she's amongst the faster learners. What can't be ignored, thou, is the fact that Lisicki's positive Slam returns are all at Wimbledon: she's yet to make a QF appearance on any other Slam surface. So her learning-to-win education could almost be said to be on steroids when it comes to grass vs the other 2 Slam surfaces. Bartoli only made her 3rd Wimby QF this year out of 11 total appearances. Lisicki's made her 4th QF here in 5 total appearances. Lisicki's propensity to be a fast learner on this surface undercuts Marion's greater experience on this surface. If this was a clay or hardcourt Slam final, then at this point in their careers there's no way I'd be liking Sabine to be anything other than a toss up vs Marion. But this is grass, and Sabine has taken to a surface she's allergic to like a fish to water.
Finally, having the experience advantage usually means the age factor isnt on your side. The only women in the modern era of WTA tennis (1980 onwards) to win their first Slam aged 28 or older have been...
Novotna in 1998's Wimbledon (29)
Schiavone in 2010's French Open (29, almost 30)
Li Na in 2011's French Open (29)
The French Open I care less about, since the slower surface plays into not hurting older, slightly less physically capable players as much as faster surfaces. That leaves Marion trying to do something only Jana Novotna has done in the last 33 1/2 years, and Novotna in '98 was...
- making her 2nd straight Wimby final
- had made her 8th GS SF on the way to the final (Marion here has only made her 2nd Slam SF)
- was making her 4th Slam F appearance (only Marion's 2nd here)
- was making her 3rd Wimby F in 6 years
- and of course by all rights it should've been Novotna's 2nd Wimby F win, since nobody can surely be ignorant of her monumental meltdown to Graf in a '93 final she had all but won at said point.
Marion is pushing against some serious history on a surface like this.
(2) The "dues paid" angle: For 1-off finals, I'm always partial to first believing in the those who has done the most work to make said final, be it a team or individual. Take last year's mlb WS: there's no contest between who paid more dues to qualify. SF came from 0-2 down vs. Cincy, and 1-3 down vs. Saint Louis. While they hugely benefited from important injuries to both their NL opponents, they still had to go out and win some tough games to make sure they cashed in on those injuries. Meanwhile Detroit benefited from facing a toothless version of the Yankees (who, in hindsight, were never capable of testing them), and an Oakland team with huge offensive holes, holes which meant in their series deciding 5th game Oakland simply wasn't capable of asking any questions of Verlander or Detroit. In realising SF "won" this "dues paid" angle, I still personally thought they benefited too much from those injuries to their NL opponents and so I undersold their "winning" this "dues paid" front. Clearly what then unfolded showed that to be an error on my part.
So, who has paid their immediate dues to get here? It's almost a comical joke. Lisicki has beaten 4 previous Slam finalists (Radwanska +...) and 3 Slam winners (Schiavone, Stosur, Serena) to get here, and if that wasn't enough beat 2 other accomplished enough players in her other 2 matches (Vesnina ranked 22, and Kanepi ranked 46). Bartoli has beaten a string of nobodies (only 2 ranked above 73: 20 & 22), and the best of them, Sloane Stephens, is really is only going to be a somebody in the future; at present she's still learning how to win (& it's arguable whether grass, as opposed to hardcourts, will even be her best surface, as it unarguably is for Lisicki).
But there is a second layer to the "dues" question, and that's where matters are much more even. As already stated, Lisicki has made 3 QFs (& 1 SF) in her previous 4 Wimby appearances. On the "historical dues" front, she's put in the effort in previous Wimby's to have "earnt" a F place here. Bartoli's 3 best previous efforts at Wimby had been a F, a QF & a 4R (all over the past 6 years), so in recent times it must be said she's applied herself enough that it's fitting she be the one player to benefit from all the upsets which occurred in the bottom half of the draw. I don't think it can be argued either player here, from this angle, is an unworthy finalist (unlike, say, would immediately have been something able to be leveled at Flipkens, had she made it through). Still, we all know Marion isn't here if Azarenka, Sharapova & Kvitova weren't all knocked out "before their time". We also know Sabine has beaten a string of players who in their totality are just as good as those Marion fortunately never got to face.
I've got 2 parlays that need Lisicki's ml to come in (1 to finish off, 1 still also needs to Joker ml), so I'll only be looking to bet live at this point. Don't necessarily think this is a whitewash, nor do I think it's "impossible" (or rather, improbable) that Lisicki loses, but if she does it will be because she's beaten herself, not because she played like she can and Bartoli has taken that and proved a match for it. Nothing in her 3 struggles with Stosur, Serena & Radwanska suggests that lesser, choker version of Sabine still has a large say in her psychological make-up. But you never know.
Last edited:
Toronto_Mike
Scent of a Woman
great views there BC.
I'm just curious to see what has Bartoli learnt from 2007.
I won't get involved with handicap here just because I got fucked by Serena in Frenchie. Bartoli is a good tennis player...just not great. This is Lisicki's surface, she loves it here and the crowd loves her.
Lisicki ML with other things would be ideal!
I'm just curious to see what has Bartoli learnt from 2007.
I won't get involved with handicap here just because I got fucked by Serena in Frenchie. Bartoli is a good tennis player...just not great. This is Lisicki's surface, she loves it here and the crowd loves her.
Lisicki ML with other things would be ideal!
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Mike, tbh I thought the spread would be -4 if not -4.5, so I'm well open to Marion winning a set here since -3.5 seems a tad low. Being her first Final, I think it's asking a bit too much of Sabine to hammer the hell out of Marion (which I think had she a Slam title under her belt already, would be an odds on possibility). And with this view, I've obv. gone cold on any Under thoughts.
& fwiw -
View attachment 31711
& fwiw -
View attachment 31711
Toronto_Mike
Scent of a Woman
i'm trying to look back at previous WTA first time GS winners and it just seems like an absolute paste job and poor Masha was on the end of both Kvitova and Azarenka's first GS wins
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
Fwiw, my Men's final thoughts: The Choker vs The Joker
There's a guy at blankets - BetNoRoulette - whose stuff I always value reading, and since I like some ground he covers for this final that I wouldn't personally get into I think he's worth quoting:
Covering the 2 angles I brought up for the women's final:
(1) The experience angle: Nole is making his 11th Slam final appearance compared to Murray's 7th, but both are only making their 2nd appearance in a Wimby Final. So even thou Nole has ended up making significantly more hay in the Finals he's made than what Murray has (6 wins to 1), I don't see any significant separation between the 2 can be had on this front , esp. when you add in the fact Murray had the experience last year of beating the Joker on this very court en route to a gold medal win (but what separation there is obv. goes to the Joker, given he has developed a comfort zone re winning Slams).
(2) The "dues paid" angle: As far as "immediate dues" go, I don't think it can be argued the Joker has had the tougher road to this final given Andy('s side of the draw) was so clearly the greater beneficiary of the early upsets. Birdshit & Delpo make for a more fearsome road into the final than Verdasco & Janowhiner.
As far as "historical dues" go, this year was the 5th time in 9 Wimby appearances the Joker made at least the SFs, whereas for Murray this was his 5th straight year of making at least the SFs, so there's again basically nothing separating on this front. From this pov, neither player would "unjustly" have their name on the trophy before the other did. Both have paid their dues & more on all fronts.
So, since the 2 main angles I like to adhere to first tell me very little, what else is there to look at? Neither player really played "anyone" before the QFs, so it's those 4 matches I've looked at (both stat wise, and rehashing what I made of them watching live, via comments in the in-game)...
The Joker's QF & SF
Birdshit led 6-5 0-15 in the 1st set and fluffed an easy passing shot approaching the net with the Joker at the net on the other side. Obv. had he made it, it would've been 0-30 instead of what it ended up being, 15-15. The next point he screwed up again, and so what ended up being 30-15 could easily have been 0-40. he proceeded to win the next point for 30-30, so excise the errors and there's a 7-5 1st set win. Obv. it's not that easy, since the Joker reacts differently to where the game scores are at if he's 0-30/0-40 down, the point I think is made. birdshit had the 1st set on his racquet at that point, and he muffed entirely makeable shots. Then into the tiebreak Birdshit was 4-3 up with 2 serves coming. A guy whose game is totally keyed around serving lost both subsequent points. Even if he';d gone 1-1, it'd have been at worse 6-7 the next time he served. No, choked like a chicken and in a flash the set was gone. Proceeds to break the Joker not once but twice to begin the 2nd then, once again, with the key aspect to his game in his hands - serving - he chokes like a chicken. These lapses were totally psychological. At the time the Joker's form was clearly receding (consecutively broken Joker service games? when the hell did that happen last?) and he was putting little pressure on Birdshit, Birdshit himself gave Joker the opening to get back into it. 3 games laters the set was even again, and from there Birdshit offered little. He was psychologically cooked after that. Nole benefited from, by my count, 3 major sets of Birdshit fuck-ups (last service game of the 1st set, TB serving, & 4th+6th games of the 2nd set). Those fuck ups were on Birdshit's racquet, not Nole's. For the Joker looking back, that's the concern.
The story for his SF vs Delpo was undoubtedly the "free points" angle. The improvement the Joker has made to his serve won him this match. Delpo ran out of gas in the 5th due to the mountain of free points the Joker had accumulated throughout the match to that point, vs .really the dearth of the same for Delpo. But paradoxically, that this is why the Joker won this match must be seen to be a concern. How exactly did Delpo force a 5th set having conceded such a deficit? I think the answer has been related by BetNo R.: grass isn't Nole's best surface, he's going to struggle to put away someone offering stiff resistance. Murray's serve (& lack of any knee concerns) is going to (or, at least should) see him manage a lot more free points than what Delpo did (but maybe Murray too will end up crying in the middle of a set as his real game stays locked in his head, and so such free points never materialise: reality can deliver almost anything, after all)
The Choker's QF & SF
I think the story for the Verdasco match rests simply on the fact the current Murray didn't appear for the first 2 sets. That was the Andy-of-old out there, lacking energy, at odds with himself, unsure what was going on. The fact he was facing an experienced & crafty lefty meant he paid the full price for his "nonplussedness" where against someone else he might have come out of it 1-1 after 2. Verdasco's downfall was taking the 3rd set off, that helped the "new" (Gold medal, Slam winner) Murray to appear (thou it's hard to deny him needing a breather after what were still 2 tough opening sets). Still Verdasco asked questions over the final 2 sets, and but for some superb serving (leading to crucial free points) by Murray, Verdasco may well have gotten more BP chances than he otherwise did. A match that shouldn't have been as close as it was, paradoxically might be, in hindsight, just what Murray needed - a real tester. This match asked more questions of him than any Janowicz asked. Still, the warning sign from this match is why was old Andy out there for 2 full sets? Old Andy can't afford to show against the Joker.
Murray's SF vs Janowicz ended up being extremely similar to his SF against Roddick in '09. Facing a big server in each, both matches were 1-1 after 2 sets (Murray winning the 2nd set in both by 6-4). Against Roddick the 3rd set went to a tiebreaker. With Janowicz leading 4-1 in the 3rd, the best you'd have expected from Murray at that point was also to force a tiebreaker. IMO the biggest difference between 09 Andy winning the 3rd before needing a tiebreak, and 13 Andy doing so, is the headspace difference between the 2. While the quality of opponent was clearly different in 09, Roddick never had any 4-1 lead. Again IMO, old Andy loses that 3rd set from 4-1 down. Whether old Andy still goes onto lose the match, I think is arguable-to-doubtful, since the flaws still in Janowicz's game make it debatable whether he's at the point psychologically to win such a match. While Verdasco tested him more overall, his worst point in either match was 4-1 down in that 3rd. From there he won 5 straight games, and ended doubt about not only who the match winner would be. That set win was also crucial from the pov of him avoiding having played 2 x 5 setters before the final. After the match he said that Janowicz's serve made for a no rhythm match, and that's what he struggled to get to grips with early on. A feasible enough "excuse" to explain his 1st set loss.
I think Delpo & Birdshit shone enough light in their matches to show the Joker is hardly invincible in this tourney. Murray is a more accomplished player than either of them on this surface, so from my pov the question isn't has Murray got what's needed to bring to this final to beat the Joker, it's will he bring what he most definitely has got? But of course only one player faces the weight of "negative" history here, and one has to ponder on how much psychological inertia that's going to affect him in his efforts to pull out of himself that which is required to beat Nole. just another wrinkle to this match.
A final thought: Nole has 6 Slam wins, but only 2 have come in the final 3 Slams of the season combined:
4 Aussie Open Finals for 4 wins = 100% win rate
6 Finals in the other 3 Slams for 2 wins = 33% win rate
Since his "year from heaven" started (2011):
2 Aussie Open Finals for 2 wins = 100% win rate
4 Finals in the other 3 Slams for 2 wins = 50% win rate (incl. 1 loss to Murray)
Off the break between seasons Nole has been indomitable in a Slam final at any time in his career, otherwise he's been average to less-than-average (depending on the time frame you consider).
Given all the above, I think Murray is over the odds here. Nole is the rightful favourite, but I'm not interested in him at his current odds given the holes lesser grass players than Murray have revealed in his game in recent matches. They lacked the ability to fully exploit what they found, and what we're soon to find out is not whether Murray can exploit those same holes, but which Andy shows up to try to? The Choker doesn't stand a chance, but does the Choker show up? I'll be betting live (hunting Andy if/when he wins 1 of the 1st 2 sets, & is a set win that doesn't require a TB: something that will signify to me the Choker isn't on court). Thought about the Over, but that's obv. totally tied to which Andy shows up, a lottery with a slightly less costly buy-in price, but still a lottery (plus, Andy could always hammer to deliver the Under. That's something I bet no one expects).
There's a guy at blankets - BetNoRoulette - whose stuff I always value reading, and since I like some ground he covers for this final that I wouldn't personally get into I think he's worth quoting:
Covering the 2 angles I brought up for the women's final:
(1) The experience angle: Nole is making his 11th Slam final appearance compared to Murray's 7th, but both are only making their 2nd appearance in a Wimby Final. So even thou Nole has ended up making significantly more hay in the Finals he's made than what Murray has (6 wins to 1), I don't see any significant separation between the 2 can be had on this front , esp. when you add in the fact Murray had the experience last year of beating the Joker on this very court en route to a gold medal win (but what separation there is obv. goes to the Joker, given he has developed a comfort zone re winning Slams).
(2) The "dues paid" angle: As far as "immediate dues" go, I don't think it can be argued the Joker has had the tougher road to this final given Andy('s side of the draw) was so clearly the greater beneficiary of the early upsets. Birdshit & Delpo make for a more fearsome road into the final than Verdasco & Janowhiner.
As far as "historical dues" go, this year was the 5th time in 9 Wimby appearances the Joker made at least the SFs, whereas for Murray this was his 5th straight year of making at least the SFs, so there's again basically nothing separating on this front. From this pov, neither player would "unjustly" have their name on the trophy before the other did. Both have paid their dues & more on all fronts.
So, since the 2 main angles I like to adhere to first tell me very little, what else is there to look at? Neither player really played "anyone" before the QFs, so it's those 4 matches I've looked at (both stat wise, and rehashing what I made of them watching live, via comments in the in-game)...
The Joker's QF & SF
Birdshit led 6-5 0-15 in the 1st set and fluffed an easy passing shot approaching the net with the Joker at the net on the other side. Obv. had he made it, it would've been 0-30 instead of what it ended up being, 15-15. The next point he screwed up again, and so what ended up being 30-15 could easily have been 0-40. he proceeded to win the next point for 30-30, so excise the errors and there's a 7-5 1st set win. Obv. it's not that easy, since the Joker reacts differently to where the game scores are at if he's 0-30/0-40 down, the point I think is made. birdshit had the 1st set on his racquet at that point, and he muffed entirely makeable shots. Then into the tiebreak Birdshit was 4-3 up with 2 serves coming. A guy whose game is totally keyed around serving lost both subsequent points. Even if he';d gone 1-1, it'd have been at worse 6-7 the next time he served. No, choked like a chicken and in a flash the set was gone. Proceeds to break the Joker not once but twice to begin the 2nd then, once again, with the key aspect to his game in his hands - serving - he chokes like a chicken. These lapses were totally psychological. At the time the Joker's form was clearly receding (consecutively broken Joker service games? when the hell did that happen last?) and he was putting little pressure on Birdshit, Birdshit himself gave Joker the opening to get back into it. 3 games laters the set was even again, and from there Birdshit offered little. He was psychologically cooked after that. Nole benefited from, by my count, 3 major sets of Birdshit fuck-ups (last service game of the 1st set, TB serving, & 4th+6th games of the 2nd set). Those fuck ups were on Birdshit's racquet, not Nole's. For the Joker looking back, that's the concern.
The story for his SF vs Delpo was undoubtedly the "free points" angle. The improvement the Joker has made to his serve won him this match. Delpo ran out of gas in the 5th due to the mountain of free points the Joker had accumulated throughout the match to that point, vs .really the dearth of the same for Delpo. But paradoxically, that this is why the Joker won this match must be seen to be a concern. How exactly did Delpo force a 5th set having conceded such a deficit? I think the answer has been related by BetNo R.: grass isn't Nole's best surface, he's going to struggle to put away someone offering stiff resistance. Murray's serve (& lack of any knee concerns) is going to (or, at least should) see him manage a lot more free points than what Delpo did (but maybe Murray too will end up crying in the middle of a set as his real game stays locked in his head, and so such free points never materialise: reality can deliver almost anything, after all)
The Choker's QF & SF
I think the story for the Verdasco match rests simply on the fact the current Murray didn't appear for the first 2 sets. That was the Andy-of-old out there, lacking energy, at odds with himself, unsure what was going on. The fact he was facing an experienced & crafty lefty meant he paid the full price for his "nonplussedness" where against someone else he might have come out of it 1-1 after 2. Verdasco's downfall was taking the 3rd set off, that helped the "new" (Gold medal, Slam winner) Murray to appear (thou it's hard to deny him needing a breather after what were still 2 tough opening sets). Still Verdasco asked questions over the final 2 sets, and but for some superb serving (leading to crucial free points) by Murray, Verdasco may well have gotten more BP chances than he otherwise did. A match that shouldn't have been as close as it was, paradoxically might be, in hindsight, just what Murray needed - a real tester. This match asked more questions of him than any Janowicz asked. Still, the warning sign from this match is why was old Andy out there for 2 full sets? Old Andy can't afford to show against the Joker.
Murray's SF vs Janowicz ended up being extremely similar to his SF against Roddick in '09. Facing a big server in each, both matches were 1-1 after 2 sets (Murray winning the 2nd set in both by 6-4). Against Roddick the 3rd set went to a tiebreaker. With Janowicz leading 4-1 in the 3rd, the best you'd have expected from Murray at that point was also to force a tiebreaker. IMO the biggest difference between 09 Andy winning the 3rd before needing a tiebreak, and 13 Andy doing so, is the headspace difference between the 2. While the quality of opponent was clearly different in 09, Roddick never had any 4-1 lead. Again IMO, old Andy loses that 3rd set from 4-1 down. Whether old Andy still goes onto lose the match, I think is arguable-to-doubtful, since the flaws still in Janowicz's game make it debatable whether he's at the point psychologically to win such a match. While Verdasco tested him more overall, his worst point in either match was 4-1 down in that 3rd. From there he won 5 straight games, and ended doubt about not only who the match winner would be. That set win was also crucial from the pov of him avoiding having played 2 x 5 setters before the final. After the match he said that Janowicz's serve made for a no rhythm match, and that's what he struggled to get to grips with early on. A feasible enough "excuse" to explain his 1st set loss.
I think Delpo & Birdshit shone enough light in their matches to show the Joker is hardly invincible in this tourney. Murray is a more accomplished player than either of them on this surface, so from my pov the question isn't has Murray got what's needed to bring to this final to beat the Joker, it's will he bring what he most definitely has got? But of course only one player faces the weight of "negative" history here, and one has to ponder on how much psychological inertia that's going to affect him in his efforts to pull out of himself that which is required to beat Nole. just another wrinkle to this match.
A final thought: Nole has 6 Slam wins, but only 2 have come in the final 3 Slams of the season combined:
4 Aussie Open Finals for 4 wins = 100% win rate
6 Finals in the other 3 Slams for 2 wins = 33% win rate
Since his "year from heaven" started (2011):
2 Aussie Open Finals for 2 wins = 100% win rate
4 Finals in the other 3 Slams for 2 wins = 50% win rate (incl. 1 loss to Murray)
Off the break between seasons Nole has been indomitable in a Slam final at any time in his career, otherwise he's been average to less-than-average (depending on the time frame you consider).
Given all the above, I think Murray is over the odds here. Nole is the rightful favourite, but I'm not interested in him at his current odds given the holes lesser grass players than Murray have revealed in his game in recent matches. They lacked the ability to fully exploit what they found, and what we're soon to find out is not whether Murray can exploit those same holes, but which Andy shows up to try to? The Choker doesn't stand a chance, but does the Choker show up? I'll be betting live (hunting Andy if/when he wins 1 of the 1st 2 sets, & is a set win that doesn't require a TB: something that will signify to me the Choker isn't on court). Thought about the Over, but that's obv. totally tied to which Andy shows up, a lottery with a slightly less costly buy-in price, but still a lottery (plus, Andy could always hammer to deliver the Under. That's something I bet no one expects).
Last edited:
BetCrimes1984
CTG Big Brother
[video=youtube;155u4ytvjvM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=155u4ytvjvM[/video]
