https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Tennis/who-is-the-tennis-betting-goat/3XP2XYMWNYEUR6AA
THON BRYJONACKI TENNIS
JUN 5, 2020
Who is the tennis GOAT? A view from the betting markets
Using Grand Slams to assess performance
Analysing performance against expectation?
Who comes out on top in head-to-heads?
This generation of tennis fans have been blessed with three of the greatest players of all time. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have reigned supreme in men’s tennis for over a decade, but who is the best player out of the three? Read this article to find out what the betting markets suggest.
After Novak Djokovic won his 8th Australian Open and 17th Grand Slam in February this year, I was convinced that 2020 would go a long way to settling the debate about the greatest male player of all time.
Could Federer eek out another slam or two, or would he be caught and ultimately overtaken by Nadal or Djokovic, or both? Tennis has been blessed to have three of the greatest players ever all competing in the same era, but who, once all their careers are said and done, will have the best claim to the greatest of all time (GOAT) tag - Federer, Nadal or Djokovic?
Depending on your perspective, you may think that either one of these three deserves to be the GOAT. Federer hangs on to his lead in both total Grand Slams won with 20 and weeks at the number 1 ranking, Nadal has the best career win/loss record at 83.2% and trails Federer by just one Grand Slam, and yet Djokovic has a superior head-to-head against both of them.
Even if you think the GOAT debate rests solely on Grand Slam victories, there is a chance that when all their careers are finished, the record will be shared between two or more of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In this case, what will settle the debate?
I wanted to cast a different lens over this debate. While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are undoubtedly three of the greatest players of all time, is there anything more we can learn from looking at how they have been perceived by betting markets, and how they have performed relative to their odds? Let’s take a look at what betting markets can tell us about their careers. Who is the tennis betting GOAT?
Using Grand Slams to assess performance
Beginning with Wimbledon in 2003, where Federer won his first major, only seven players other than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have won a Grand Slam. Those seven players have won just 11 titles from the past 67 tournaments.
First, I wanted to have a look at whether Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have had the assistance of favourable draws. While comparing the ranking of their opposition is certainly a crude measure, it may indicate whether a player has been consistently lucky at certain stages of tournaments.
After all, in a slam the winner only needs to defeat seven of the 127 other players, so who you face and in what round could have a decent influence on your chances. The chart below shows the average ranking of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic’s opponents in each round of slams.
Djokovic has, on balance, played higher ranked opponents in semi-finals and finals, though has had a slightly softer quarter-final draws. Federer’s Grand Slam career got off to a flying start, winning his first seven finals. Amongst these, he defeated players ranked 48, 86 and 54. Djokovic, on the other hand has only faced one player outside the top 10 in his 26 finals appearances.
What do the odds say?
The next chart plots the players’ average win probabilities implied by their odds. As the purpose was a comparison of the three players, I didn’t remove the margin. We can see that Federer has generally been shorter than both Nadal and Djokovic, although in semi-finals Nadal has had the easiest path, according to the odds. Djokovic has consistently been priced longest of the three. Across semi-finals and finals, Federer’s average odds have been 1.47, Nadal 1.42 and Djokovic 1.56.
On one hand shorter odds may reveal easier draws, although it will also reflect a better player. In a previous article, I showed that tennis betting markets are highly efficient, meaning they offer a great assessment of actual win probabilities. What may be more interesting then, is performance relative to the expectations implied by their odds.
Say Federer is priced at 1.25 for a match. This implies a probability of 1/1.25 = 80%, or 0.8 of a win. If he wins the match, he has won 0.2 of a match above expectation. If he loses, he is 0.8 of a match below expectation. How have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic performed in slams on this measure?
It should be noted that I only had odds data from 2001 onwards, so Federer’s six slam appearances prior to 2001 aren’t included. Pinnacles odds were used from 2004 to 2020.
In semi-finals and finals, Nadal has performed best of the three, winning 3.6 more matches than betting markets expected him to, despite being priced shorter on average. At +2.8 Djokovic has also performed strongly at the pointy end of slams.
Interestingly, Federer (-1.4) has actually performed below expectation in semi-finals and finals. Across all Grand Slam matches Djokovic is +10.4 matches up on expectation, compared to Nadal +3.4 and Federer +0.5.
Let’s unpack this table a little further and focus on their Grand Slam losses. Federer has lost 53 times at slams (since 2001), Nadal 39 and Djokovic 43. The chart below shows the proportion of these that fall into each implied probability quintile.
Of their respective losses Federer lost 35 (66%), Nadal 27 (69%), and Djokovic 24 (56%) times as favourite. If we assume Federer’s six slam losses in 1999 and 2000 were more likely to be at longer odds, his percentage will actually be lower than 66%, and it’s fair to say that Nadal has had the highest proportion of unexpected losses at slams.
Similarly, if we look at the average odds in all their losses, Nadal (1.56) just edges Federer (1.58) for the worst record, with Djokovic (1.79) the best. This suggests that in respect to betting market expectations, Nadal has been the least clinical at slams, with Djokovic the most clinical, by some margin.
Who has the most underdog wins?
What about winning as an underdog? While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven’t often found themselves as outsiders at a slam, let’s take a look at how they’ve performed when the odds have been against them.
Djokovic is the only player of the three to have performed better than expected when he’s been an underdog, winning 9 matches from 22, slightly above the 8.1 his expectation. Federer has clearly been the least impressive, winning just 7 from 25 matches, 2.1 less than expected.
The table below lists the trios’ slam wins as underdog. Djokovic has delivered the biggest upset (4.50 vs Gonzalez at the French Open 2006) and interestingly, Nadal has never beaten Djokovic as an outsider at a slam, in four attempts. He also hasn’t won as an underdog since 2012.
THON BRYJONACKI TENNIS
JUN 5, 2020
Who is the tennis GOAT? A view from the betting markets
Using Grand Slams to assess performance
Analysing performance against expectation?
Who comes out on top in head-to-heads?
This generation of tennis fans have been blessed with three of the greatest players of all time. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have reigned supreme in men’s tennis for over a decade, but who is the best player out of the three? Read this article to find out what the betting markets suggest.
After Novak Djokovic won his 8th Australian Open and 17th Grand Slam in February this year, I was convinced that 2020 would go a long way to settling the debate about the greatest male player of all time.
Could Federer eek out another slam or two, or would he be caught and ultimately overtaken by Nadal or Djokovic, or both? Tennis has been blessed to have three of the greatest players ever all competing in the same era, but who, once all their careers are said and done, will have the best claim to the greatest of all time (GOAT) tag - Federer, Nadal or Djokovic?
Depending on your perspective, you may think that either one of these three deserves to be the GOAT. Federer hangs on to his lead in both total Grand Slams won with 20 and weeks at the number 1 ranking, Nadal has the best career win/loss record at 83.2% and trails Federer by just one Grand Slam, and yet Djokovic has a superior head-to-head against both of them.
Even if you think the GOAT debate rests solely on Grand Slam victories, there is a chance that when all their careers are finished, the record will be shared between two or more of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In this case, what will settle the debate?
I wanted to cast a different lens over this debate. While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are undoubtedly three of the greatest players of all time, is there anything more we can learn from looking at how they have been perceived by betting markets, and how they have performed relative to their odds? Let’s take a look at what betting markets can tell us about their careers. Who is the tennis betting GOAT?
Using Grand Slams to assess performance
Beginning with Wimbledon in 2003, where Federer won his first major, only seven players other than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have won a Grand Slam. Those seven players have won just 11 titles from the past 67 tournaments.
First, I wanted to have a look at whether Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have had the assistance of favourable draws. While comparing the ranking of their opposition is certainly a crude measure, it may indicate whether a player has been consistently lucky at certain stages of tournaments.
After all, in a slam the winner only needs to defeat seven of the 127 other players, so who you face and in what round could have a decent influence on your chances. The chart below shows the average ranking of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic’s opponents in each round of slams.
Djokovic has, on balance, played higher ranked opponents in semi-finals and finals, though has had a slightly softer quarter-final draws. Federer’s Grand Slam career got off to a flying start, winning his first seven finals. Amongst these, he defeated players ranked 48, 86 and 54. Djokovic, on the other hand has only faced one player outside the top 10 in his 26 finals appearances.
What do the odds say?
The next chart plots the players’ average win probabilities implied by their odds. As the purpose was a comparison of the three players, I didn’t remove the margin. We can see that Federer has generally been shorter than both Nadal and Djokovic, although in semi-finals Nadal has had the easiest path, according to the odds. Djokovic has consistently been priced longest of the three. Across semi-finals and finals, Federer’s average odds have been 1.47, Nadal 1.42 and Djokovic 1.56.
On one hand shorter odds may reveal easier draws, although it will also reflect a better player. In a previous article, I showed that tennis betting markets are highly efficient, meaning they offer a great assessment of actual win probabilities. What may be more interesting then, is performance relative to the expectations implied by their odds.
Say Federer is priced at 1.25 for a match. This implies a probability of 1/1.25 = 80%, or 0.8 of a win. If he wins the match, he has won 0.2 of a match above expectation. If he loses, he is 0.8 of a match below expectation. How have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic performed in slams on this measure?
It should be noted that I only had odds data from 2001 onwards, so Federer’s six slam appearances prior to 2001 aren’t included. Pinnacles odds were used from 2004 to 2020.
In semi-finals and finals, Nadal has performed best of the three, winning 3.6 more matches than betting markets expected him to, despite being priced shorter on average. At +2.8 Djokovic has also performed strongly at the pointy end of slams.
Interestingly, Federer (-1.4) has actually performed below expectation in semi-finals and finals. Across all Grand Slam matches Djokovic is +10.4 matches up on expectation, compared to Nadal +3.4 and Federer +0.5.
Let’s unpack this table a little further and focus on their Grand Slam losses. Federer has lost 53 times at slams (since 2001), Nadal 39 and Djokovic 43. The chart below shows the proportion of these that fall into each implied probability quintile.
Of their respective losses Federer lost 35 (66%), Nadal 27 (69%), and Djokovic 24 (56%) times as favourite. If we assume Federer’s six slam losses in 1999 and 2000 were more likely to be at longer odds, his percentage will actually be lower than 66%, and it’s fair to say that Nadal has had the highest proportion of unexpected losses at slams.
Similarly, if we look at the average odds in all their losses, Nadal (1.56) just edges Federer (1.58) for the worst record, with Djokovic (1.79) the best. This suggests that in respect to betting market expectations, Nadal has been the least clinical at slams, with Djokovic the most clinical, by some margin.
Who has the most underdog wins?
What about winning as an underdog? While Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven’t often found themselves as outsiders at a slam, let’s take a look at how they’ve performed when the odds have been against them.
Djokovic is the only player of the three to have performed better than expected when he’s been an underdog, winning 9 matches from 22, slightly above the 8.1 his expectation. Federer has clearly been the least impressive, winning just 7 from 25 matches, 2.1 less than expected.
The table below lists the trios’ slam wins as underdog. Djokovic has delivered the biggest upset (4.50 vs Gonzalez at the French Open 2006) and interestingly, Nadal has never beaten Djokovic as an outsider at a slam, in four attempts. He also hasn’t won as an underdog since 2012.
