How much is fatigue a factor for subsequent games?

How much is fatigue a factor for subsequent games?

By Dan Weston Jul 22, 2014

Tweet

Playing three-set matches naturally takes a lot more effort than a two-set match, on either the ATP or WTA Tour.  This article assesses whether players thrive or falter following consecutive three-set matches in the WTA, and whether the market has been efficient in pricing up these matches in recent times.

It seems logical to assume that playing a three-set match as opposed to a two-set match is not beneficial to a players chance of winning their next match.  The average amount of games played in a two-set match falls between 19 and 20, so the victor of a three-set match has to play a further 9-10 games to win their contest; but what value can be put on that extra fatigue?

Accumulated fatigue is a big part of tennis – as evidenced in previous articles – and it should follow that playing two consecutive three-set matches should hinder a players chance even further.  This should particularly be the case in the WTA where anecdotally, players are not as fit as their ATP counterparts.

The following table illustrates the record of top 50 WTA players following consecutive three-set match wins in the same tournament (and any subsequent consecutive three set wins) in their last 50 matches (data correct at 17th July, 2014) with a hypothetical bet of 100 applied to all players.  All prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices, with matches voided if at least one set is not completed.

Odds Range

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L

ROI

<1.25

4

3

75.00

-46

-11.50

1.25-1.49

7

6

85.71

115

16.43

1.50-1.99

21

14

66.67

308

14.67

2.00-2.99

11

4

36.36

-108

-9.82

3.00+

35

11

31.43

1915

54.71

Favourite

32

23

71.88

377

11.78

Underdog

46

15

32.61

1807

39.28

Overall

78

38

48.72

2184

28.00

Which players thrive in 3 set matches?

We can see from the table above that there weren’t actually a huge number of instances where WTA players played at least two three-set matches in a row.  It’s worth noting that there are slightly less three-set matches in the WTA than the ATP (32.8% to 36.4% from June 2013 to June 2014) despite the efforts of Czech duo Petra Kvitova and Lucie Safarova, who appear to be intent on improving the WTA’s percentage in this regard.

This neatly brings us on to Safarova – following consecutive three-set matches, she lost all three in the sample.  Defeats came at the hands of Li Na at the Australian Open (Safarova’s starting price 7.155), Kvitova in Doha (3.334) and Andrea Petkovic in Charleston (2.255).  Interestingly, all three of those matches also went the distance but with Safarova losing the final set 6-3 or worse on all occasions, it would appear that the accumulated fatigue eventually got the better of her.

During the course of research, a number of remarkable matches and statistics were generated.

Dominika Cibulkova played two consecutive three-set matches in consecutive tournaments, losing her third on both occasions – to Li Na in Miami (3.141) and Donna Vekic in the final of Kuala Lumpur as a heavy favourite (1.187).

Andrea Petkovic defeated Sara Errani, 6-2 6-2, in the French Open after three consecutive three-set wins as a heavy underdog (3.467), whilst Alize Cornet’s record after two three-set wins is truly incredible.  The Frenchwoman – not necessarily renowned for her consistency – managed wins against the aforementioned Petkovic (priced 3.204), Agnieszka Radwanska (5.750), Camila Giorgi (2.048) and Serena Williams (12.327) following two three-set wins in a row.  It would appear fitness isn’t a huge problem for Cornet.

Player analysis wouldn’t be complete without mentioning Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova.  Quite incredibly, the 23 year old Russian won the 2014 Open GDF Suez in Paris  playing a three-set match in every round.  She defeated Angelique Kerber in three sets in the quarter finals after two three-set matches when priced at 3.588, before getting the better of Maria Sharapova when 5.287 in a decider, and then taking the title with a 6-3 final set win over Sara Errani (1.540).

Value in backing underdogs

As readers will have seen from the above player analysis, there were a number of wins for players as heavy underdogs following consecutive three-set matches – from the 78 matches in the sample, a superb 28.00% return on investment was generated.  Furthermore, this jumped to 39.28% when assessing the 46 underdogs.  Whilst the sample is small, it does show a very high return and it would take a severe run of bad results for this to fall into negative territory.

This success is a surprise, and as mentioned at the beginning of the article appears highly illogical.

One possible theory for WTA players in the sample is the level of effort they put into matches.  Many tennis bettors and fans are amazed at the inconsistency of many WTA players with comments made regarding the effort that some players put into matches.

However, if a player wins two deciding sets of matches in a row in the same tournament there can be no doubt whatsoever about how motivated they are for that event, and it would follow – both logically and from the above results – that this will continue to their subsequent match.  It could also be debated whether winning several tight matches gives a player a high level of self-belief which may stand them in good stead for their next match in the tournament.

Dan Weston is a freelance tennis writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also produces his own tennis rating system, and trading analysis, which can be found at www.tennisratings.co.uk.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.