Tournament odds at the semi-final stage

[helterskelter]

Men's singles outright:
Djokovic 4/7, Murray 4/1, Federer 9/2, Raonic 11/1

Women's singles outright:
Williams 3/10, Kerber 5/1, Radwanska 9/1, Konta 14/1

Men's singles semi-final matches:
Djokovic v Federer: 1/3 v 5/2
Murray v Raonic: 4/11 v 9/4

Potential finals in order of likelihood: 1. Djokovic/Murray, 2. Djokovic/Raonic, 3. Federer/Murray, 4. Federer/Raonic. [N.B. Given that Raonic has more chance of scoring the upset than does Federer, according to the odds].

Women's singles semi-final matches:
Williams v Radwanska: 2/15 v 19/4
Kerber v Konta: 3/10 v 12/5

Potential finals in order of likelihood: 1. Williams/Kerber, 2. Williams/Konta, 3. Radwanska/Kerber, 4. Radwanska/Konta. [N.B. Again, the outsider for the tournament has more chance of pulling off the upset than does the 2nd/3rd favorite, if the bookmakers are right].

 

[Inanimate_object]

The Murray v. Raonic line had shortened considerably since I last checked. It's still a good value bet though. I think I'd even take Radwanska outright with her line.

 

[helterskelter]

The Murray v. Raonic line had shortened considerably since I last checked. It's still a good value bet though. I think I'd even take Radwanska outright with her line.

Radwanska would likely be favorite if she were drawn against Kerber in the semis, so it might be a good bet. It's just that it's really hard to see her being able to beat Williams, whereas Kerber might have an outside chance. What Kerber has and Radwanska doesn't is a game that might be able to cope with Williams' power. If I were Kerber's coach, I'd get her to watch some of Capriati's matches against Williams. Although Serena led Capriati 10-7 overall, Capriati often troubled her. Williams had more power but Capriati could hang in sufficiently to press Williams into error. (Radwanska might benefit from watching some of Hingis's wins against Williams. Hingis ended up 6-7 against Williams. The issue is that some of the later matches were really one-sided in Williams's favor).

Also, bookmakers always offer shorter odds to a player who doesn't necessarily have to play the overwhelming favorite than they do to a similar player who does have to play that favorite.

 

[helterskelter]

N.B. Even when Serena went on an eight-match winning run against Capriati, Capriati won a set in seven of those matches, and the eighth one was 7-5 7-6. Then again, Serena did beat Capriati 6-1 6-1 at Wimbledon 2004. But that was her only dominant win against Capriati in 17 career matches.

 

[Mac33]

Capriati had huge powerful flat strokes from memory.

On the Raonic v Murray match--Raonic really has to get a high percentage of first serves in to have a decent chance.

He made far too many UE against Monfils and will need to reduce them against Murray.

I see a potential upset in the Djokovic v Federer match. Djokovic is looking malnourished and possibly has lost some of his strength. I see Fed winning in straight sets!

Then Fed defeating Murray 3-1 in the final.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Men's singles outright:
Djokovic 4/7, Murray 4/1, Federer 9/2, Raonic 11/1

Interesting that some bookies see Murray as a surer bet to win it than Fed. Given their recent h2h, be interesting to see what those odds would look like should a Fed v. Murray final materialize.

 

[helterskelter]

Interesting that some bookies see Murray as a surer bet to win it than Fed. Given their recent h2h, be interesting to see what those odds would look like should a Fed v. Murray final materialize.

Yes, but see what I said in an earlier reply: if two players are roughly evenly matched but neither is the favorite, the bookmakers will always give better odds to the player who might be able to win the tournament without defeating the favorite. Murray might win the tournament without beating Djokovic. Federer can do that only if Djokovic picks up an injury, which is unlikely. I'm sure that, if Federer were playing Murray in the semis, they'd make Federer more likely to win that match and to win the title. But because he has to play Djokovic, they think he's less likely to win the title. (For the same reason, Kerber is 5/1 and Radwanska 9/1 when Radwanska would probably be favorite if they played each other).

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Yes, but see what I said in an earlier reply: if two players are roughly evenly matched but neither is the favorite, the bookmakers will always give better odds to the player who might be able to win the tournament without defeating the favorite. Murray might win the tournament without beating Djokovic. Federer can do that only if Djokovic picks up an injury, which is unlikely. I'm sure that, if Federer were playing Murray in the semis, they'd make Federer more likely to win that match and to win the title. But because he has to play Djokovic, they think he's less likely to win the title. (For the same reason, Kerber is 5/1 and Radwanska 9/1 when Radwanska would probably be favorite if they played each other).

Makes good sense, but are these two players really "roughly evenly matched"? I don't see it that way.

 

[helterskelter]

Makes good sense, but are these two players really "roughly evenly matched"? I don't see it that way.

It's close enough, I think. In other words, both aren't close to Djokovic, in the view of the bookmakers.

 

[BGod]

I got 4.68-1 payout on Murray.

Betting wins in 4 sets is the way to go it seems. Raonic beating Monfils in 4 was being given above 3-1 payout for example.