Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This didn't happen for a long time: the current world #1 Ashley Barty is also the bookmakers favorite for the Wimbledon title.

Even Osaka won back-to-back Grand-Slam-titles she hasn't been the favorite for any big tournament she entered after her US Open title.

Serena has been the favorite for most of the tournaments she played, even though she didn't win any title since her comeback.
Anyway, that's only proof of how weak the tour is these days. Serena is 2nd favorite after Barty to win the title. And I totally agree with that, especially because Kvitova is injured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Wimbledon favorites:

6.0 Barty
7.5 S. Williams
13.0 Kvitova
13.1 Osaka
15.0 Ka. Pliskova
15.1 Kerber
19.0 Konta
21.0 Halep
26.0 Keys
26.1 Stephens
29.2 Bencic
29.3 Muguruza
34.0 Bertens
34.5 Anisimova
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
6.0 is very very low odds for a tournament favourite. I guess it's nice that the #1 is also the favourite but the field is a much bigger favourite vs Barty which is still disappointing for a tournament favourite.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,413 Posts
I want naomi to swing freely now as she lost the ranking and play like she has nothing to lose. And make a good run to second week. That will be good enough.
Though barty can win it as she is natural grass player and high on confidence right now. But it will be amazing if any of two wins it. New gen cmng fast .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,487 Posts
Barty might get an easy first week draw but she’s bound to collide with a big name or a player she has a negative h2h sooner or later?

We still don't know how she will cope mentally if someone like Serena screams at her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
Interesting point, let's see since January 2017:

- AO 2017 favorite was Kerber (or Serena, can't remember exactly), was number 1, didn't win; (so one already, unless it was Serena, in which case nada)

- FO 2017 favorite was Halep, wasn't number 1, didn't win;

- WIM 2017 favorite was... I have no clue, but I know it wasn't the current number 1 at the time (Pliskova);

- USO 2017 favorite was... also can't recall right now, but at the time Muguruza was number 1, so maybe she could have been the favorite, yeah, I think she might have been the favorite after just winning Cincinnati; (so there you have, the second one already, also didn't win)

- AO 2018 favorite was... Wozniacki, Kerber or Halep, one of these three, I'm very foggy as far as the lead-up to this Slam;

- FO 2018 favorite was Halep, also world number 1 at the time, and she did win, one of the few times in the last couple of years that the favorite ends up winning; (so second or third time world number 1 enters a slam as favorite)

- Wimbledon 2018 was a split between Kvitova and Serena, and I think Kvitova might have come out on top eventually, neither was number 1;

- USO 2018 was Serena until Halep made back to back finals in Montreal (winning) and Cincinnati, which turned the odds in her favor (she was the bookie favorite just before the draw by like a hair), but we know how that went, also second slam in a row where the favorite is eliminated early; (and another number 1 as favorite for a slam, don't need to count them anymore, it's clear it happens quite often)

- AO 2019 was Serena, not number 1, didn't win;

- FO 2019 was Halep, not number 1, didn't win.

That's three or four instances of the world number 1 being also the favorite in the previous 10 slams, so having Barty as the favorite at Wimbledon gets us that much closer to 50%. If she can be the favorite for the USO too as the world number 1 then we'll be at 6 out of 12 slams where the number 1 favorite was also number 1, so pretty good, nothing quite like the days of Serena dominating the tour, but still okay. Now if only more favorites actually won Slams, then we might be on to something. The fact we've only had that happen once or twice in 3 years is pretty ridiculous.

If anyone has access to older data for odds feel free to come in, maybe we can figure out those Slams I'm not so sure about (looking strictly for the odds before the official draw, since the draw muddies the water too much).

Why did I pick starting 2017? Well easy, before that Serena was the favorite like 90% of the time for any slam, so that data is pretty useless for what I was going for here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
6.0 is very very low odds for a tournament favourite. I guess it's nice that the #1 is also the favourite but the field is a much bigger favourite vs Barty which is still disappointing for a tournament favourite.
That's true. Novak is at 2,4 this year and Nadal unsually has a 1,something odd at Roland Garros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
That's true. Novak is at 2,4 this year and Nadal unsually has a 1,something odd at Roland Garros.
6 is usually the norm for the favorite in the WTA, the lowest I've seen that number go was this year before the FO, and it was a 4 for Halep (and that was after making the previous two finals over there), otherwise it's 5, 6 or 7 for the favorite, almost all the time. Serena was the only one I remember being under 2, and that was way back in 2015 when she was going for the calendar slam, I remember her being like 1.5 or something similar for the USO.

But yeah, no one is like Nadal and his 1.1-1.2, which is just absolutely ridiculous. Even in the ATP 2-4 is the usual norm unless you have a player who usually absolutely dominates that slam. Federer was under 2 for Wimbledon at least once, and I think Djokovic had that once before an AO, but that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
@AlexMA: Thanks!!

Does anyone remember the last time neither Federer nor Nadal or Djokovic haven't been the favorite at a Slam?

Was anybody alive at that time? :D
I was, and thanks for making me feel even older than I am. I remember the days of Agassi and Pistol Pete (Pete Sampras) and I can tell you they never had the numbers that trio has today, as far as odds go. And in the women's game Steffi Graf was an absolute legend, she definitely had a couple under 2s. Serena was a lot less consistent in the first half of her career, it's the second half when she turned into the second coming of Graf. But if you put a gun to my head and force me to pick a women's tennis GOAT, in my book it has to be Graf, followed by Serena and then Evert. In the ATP the jury is still out, but right now I'd say Fed, Nadal and Djokovic, and I could totally see that turn into Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, or really any combination of those three. And that's the incredible part, that all three are playing at the same time. That just NEVER happens in any sport. the closest I can think of right now is Formula 1 with Hamilton (5 times Champion) and Vettel (4), which would have matched by now Schumacher's record (7) if not for the fact they are racing at the same time.

Two GOATS in a sport at the same time is ridiculous, three should be illegal! After those three retire the ATP will be in shambles for years.
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
36,956 Posts
How important is it that the world #1 is also favorite for Wimbledon title?

In the bigger scheme of things....it is extremely unimportant I'd say. Global warming is important. Getting rid of nationalist governments is important. Having the number one seed at Wimbledon also be the bookmakers favourite? Much less so.

Having said that, it is nice that Ash is getting the respect that she deserves and it is fitting that Ash is the bookmakers favourite as she is playing better tennis than anyone else right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
It depends on the surface, ranking is secondary. For example, No.1 Pliskova would never be favorite at Roland Garros. Osaka can only play on hard courts. No.12 ranked player in the world Sevastova is priced 81.00 which is outside top 30 because she can't play on grass etc.

Odds of 5.00 (the lowest I see) for Barty just shows how weak era this is with Serena being a part-time player and not even being able to run anymore. Normally big favorites would be priced between 2 & 3, or even slightly below evens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,284 Posts
Lol whatever crumbs TF can get against Ash. She’s new to the top so obviously bookies aren’t going to put really high odds. And a recovering Serena is still second because she is the GOAT and has the best serve of all time, playing on grass. But whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
It depends on the surface, ranking is secondary. For example, No.1 Pliskova would never be favorite at Roland Garros. Osaka can only play on hard courts. No.12 ranked player in the world Sevastova is priced 81.00 which is outside top 30 because she can't play on grass etc.

Odds of 5.00 (the lowest I see) for Barty just shows how weak era this is with Serena being a part-time player and not even being able to run anymore. Normally big favorites would be priced between 2 & 3, or even slightly below evens.
Wasnt pliskova like top 5 at roland garros this year. Pliskova can play on any surface, her focus is the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115,438 Posts
Halep was #1 and the FO favorite all last spring and won the major
I'm not sure what it means, but its true that #1 and favorite dont usually mix in modern WTA
Osaka situation a little unusual because she got to #1 by winning 2 majors but only 3 titles. Its so unique, most other #1s have a lot of titles

WTA has several players who never won any title when they were ranked #1. We will see what Barty does while she has it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
It depends on the surface, ranking is secondary. For example, No.1 Pliskova would never be favorite at Roland Garros. Osaka can only play on hard courts. No.12 ranked player in the world Sevastova is priced 81.00 which is outside top 30 because she can't play on grass etc.
I can get Sevastova for 180 (if I wanted to). I never get why people bet with bookmakers who offer poor odds, when they could get much better odds elsewhere. In particular when it comes to non-favourites. But anyway, the real 'market value' for Sevastova winning Wimbledon (without overrounds) is 190-200. And for Barty, about 6 yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,370 Posts
I'm curious as to why Kerber's given such low odds, considering that she's the defending champ and 2016 RU.

As for the OP's question, I don't think it matters at all, be it at Wimbledon or any tournament, for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
I can get Sevastova for 180 (if I wanted to). I never get why people bet with bookmakers who offer poor odds, when they could get much better odds elsewhere. In particular when it comes to non-favourites. But anyway, the real 'market value' for Sevastova winning Wimbledon (without overrounds) is 190-200. And for Barty, about 6 yes.
I was taking average numbers from odds checking website, there are plenty, not looking for highest number. And there is no way in hell Sevastova will ever win a Slam, and definitely not one played on grass, so there is no value for Sevastova at Wimbledon where she has won a grand total of 1 match and that was against fellow clay courter Putintseva.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top