Betting Advice. A Missed Opportunity?

At the start of the AO it was possable to bet on a possible Nadal win at what are beginning to look like very generous odds. I thought it was a great opportunity for anyone wanting to risk a pound. (I don't bet myself.)

https://www.606v2.com/t21730-tennis-betting-advice

Sorry if you were too risk adverse to take this advice as you have probably now missed the opportunity.

"Already, the bookies' pre-tournament judgment that he was fourth favourite for the title he won in 2009 is looking misplaced, with the original odds of 6-1 appearing to be decidedly generous."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2088511/Australian-Open-2012-Lukas-Lacko-test-Rafael-Nadal.html

He lost to Murray and Ferrer in the last 2 visits to Melbourne before the semi's, so being 4th favourite is probably right based on this. 6-1 is only generous if Novak and Murray fall out earlier

Well was clearly injured in the QF against Ferrer, Daveed admitted that himself.

And he would have lost to Murray even without the injury- but then again Murray was ranked 5th at the time- but he was really the 4th best.

amritia3ee wrote:Well was clearly injured in the QF against Ferrer, Daveed admitted that himself.

And he would have lost to Murray even without the injury- but then again Murray was ranked 5th at the time- but he was really the 4th best.

Just telling you the facts of his 2 heavy defeats the last 2 times he went to Melbourne, no need to get stressed

Expected from his cheerleaders though

I wouldn't call myself a cheerleader.

amritia3ee wrote:Well was clearly injured in the QF against Ferrer, Daveed admitted that himself.

And he would have lost to Murray even without the injury- but then again Murray was ranked 5th at the time- but he was really the 4th best.

IMO those two losses are part of the reason for Nadals favourable odds this year despite having little bearing on what is to be expected this year... unless you believe he is somehow jinxed and will always get injured at the AO.

amritia3ee.

What makes you so sure Nadal would have lost to Murray without injury?

What makes you so sure Nadal would have lost to Murray without injury?

He is not as good in Melbourne court conditions as Andy, hence 2 AO finals > 1 AO final.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

What makes you so sure Nadal would have lost to Murray without injury?

He is not as good in Melbourne court conditions as Andy, hence 2 AO finals > 1 AO final.

1-0 where it counts Josiah, 1-0 where it counts. Titles.

hawkeye wrote:
amritia3ee.

What makes you so sure Nadal would have lost to Murray without injury?

Murray was playing very well that day, Nadal not so well.
If they both played their best Nadal would win.

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
amritia3ee.

What makes you so sure Nadal would have lost to Murray without injury?

Murray was playing very well that day, Nadal not so well.
If they both played their best Nadal would win.

Debatable

Yes, it is debatable. But Rafa 2009 final was better than any Murray performances for me.

amritia3ee

Nadal would have to continue playing "not so well" and Murray would have had to continue to "play very well" over 5 sets for Murray to win. I certainly don't think it was a done deal. It's all history now though...

hawkeye wrote:amritia3ee

Nadal would have to continue playing "not so well" and Murray would have had to continue to "play very well" over 5 sets for Murray to win. I certainly don't think it was a done deal. It's all history now though...

I could swing this another way:

Djokovic would have to play "pretty horrible" and Nadal would have to continue to play "like a brickwall" over 5 sets for Nadal to win.

Don't think a Nadal 2009 AO would've beaten a Murray US 2008.

Josiah, my WIFI has crashed can you just research the career H2H between Nadal and Djokovic for me. Thanks

legendkillar wrote:Don't think a Nadal 2009 AO would've beaten a Murray US 2008.

Well they both played Federer in the final.

Murray was two sets up, and looking extremely confident. It was probably his best performance in a slam to date (certainly his best performance against a top ten player), and Nadal that day had no answer. I see no reason why that would have changed from the third set onwards.

Last year was completely different, Nadal was unlucky to get injured against Ferrer. Personally I'm actually tipping Nadal to win it this year, but don't quote me on that

Murray's best on HC is better than Nadal's best on HC, it's just that he struggles to stay concentrated the further he gets in a GS.

Let's not be deluded now, Nadal has less AO finals appearances than all of his peers in the top 4

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Don't think a Nadal 2009 AO would've beaten a Murray US 2008.

Well they both played Federer in the final.

And that relates to Nadal v Murray as?

legendkillar wrote:Don't think a Nadal 2009 AO would've beaten a Murray US 2008.

I think you've got those rose tinted glasses on again!

Nadal of AO 2009 beat Federer of 2009. Murray of US 2008 couldn't even make Federer move out of 1st gear in 2008. Not to mention Murray wouldn't have made the final in 2008 if it hadn't been for that very odd semi against Nadal.

legendkiller.... Please don't hit me with that big stick...

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Don't think a Nadal 2009 AO would've beaten a Murray US 2008.

I think you've got those rose tinted glasses on again!

Nadal of AO 2009 beat Federer of 2009. Murray of US 2008 couldn't even make Federer move out of 1st gear in 2008. Not to mention Murray wouldn't have made the final in 2008 if it hadn't been for that very odd semi against Nadal.

legendkiller.... Please don't hit me with that big stick...

In the 2009 final Federer was not playing near the level he can produce.

I think you have those tinted glasses on.

In this debate, whether they beat Federer is irrelevant as we are discussing a Murray US 2008 and a Nadal AO 2009.

Nadal Australian Open 09 is the second best performance I have ever seen. (At number one it's Sampras Wimbledon final 1999.)

That 09 match was just another level. They were both sensational for 4 sets and Nadal continued to be strong for one more which Federer couldn't do.

Henman Bill

Once again the voice of reason. That AO final is one of the best matches I have seen in terms of quality.