Wimbledon 2014: Wild cards offer profit

Baghdatis (above) might represent value in his opening matches. Bogdanovic won't, especially as he hasn't (thankfully) received a wild card.

In his usual off-beat look at the world of tennis statistics, Jack Houghton - once off his soapbox - thinks the non-British wild-cards might offer value at Wimbledon.

Quite how the cronyism of the Grand Slam wild-card system continues in the modern game is beyond comprehension. For the uninitiated, entry into any ATP event is usually based on a player's world ranking, but the wild-card system allows tournament directors to gift an entry to a player who they feel may outperform that ranking.

In the case of the Grand Slams, this involves offering free passage into the main draw for up to eight players, most of whom wouldn't otherwise stand a chance of winning a place on merit. The Australian, French and US Opens all operate a reciprocal system, whereby they offer first-round berths for both their own domestic players, as well as players from other Grand-Slam-hosting countries.

Wimbledon is sometimes given credit for not taking part in this nepotistic practice, but given that it has, nonetheless, given 60% of its spots to British players in the last 10 years, it's hardly leading the way in a fight for meritocracy. The fact remains that players from the four Grand-Slam-hosting countries have still accounted for around half of all wild-card entries at ATP events in recent years.

Those who support the wild-card system are keen on quoting the successes of Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001 and Kim Clijsters at the 2009 US Open as evidence of the need for it; however, quite how the professional game can justify giving a free 27,000 pay-day (the remuneration for a first-round berth at Wimbledon this year) to a procession of unproven non-entities - who are already playing under the auspices of the most well-funded national programmes in the sport - is beyond me.

Perhaps the ultimate example of this cronyism at work can be seen in the career of Alex Bogdanovic. Receiving eight straight wild-card entries into Wimbledon, he never progressed past the first round, won only three out of 27 sets played, and yet pocketed over 100,000 for playing them. Bogdanovic, though, is not alone - and that's where I jump off the unfairness soapbox for a few minutes and think about the punting opportunities that the wild-card system might present at Wimbledon this year.

In the last 10 years, 43 wild-card spots have been gifted to British players, and on 37 occasions (86%) they exited in the first round. Andy Murray and Greg Rusedski accounted for two of those spots who progressed in the tournament.

It's perhaps unsurprising, then, that this year's home-grown wild-card freeloaders - Daniel Cox, Kyle Edmund, Daniel Evans, Daniel Smethurst and James Ward (selectors must have a thing for Daniels this year...) - are all 1000n/a shots.

Of more interest, though, is that non-British wild-cards at Wimbledon do much better than their world rankings suggest they should. Of the 24 entries handed out, 14 players (50%) have progressed beyond the first round, with four of those progressing further still.

Now, whilst I'm not suggesting that Ji Vesel, Nick Kyrgios and Marcos Baghdatis are likely winners of Wimbledon, they may well represent value in their opening matches, especially as some (admittedly crude) analysis on my part suggests that the market significantly undervalues non-British wild-card entries in head-to-heads.

*****

In the main market I'm taking a punt on a Roger Federer resurgence at a generous-looking 7.06/1. He played well in Halle, winning over 64% of points on his second serve - a key metric that I've been tracking this year - and although he may not be as reliable as he once was, he perhaps offers a safer proposition than Nadal and Murray, for whom there must be fitness doubts.

Recommendations
Back Vesel, Kyrgios and Baghdatis in their opening matches at Betfair SP.
Back Federer at 7.06/1.