Indoor hard season: A betting preview

In general, indoor hard is the second quickest surface on the ATP Tour, behind grass, with outdoor hard and clay generally slower. The table below illustrates the impact that the general surface has on both service points won percentages, and mean aces per game figures, across the last three years (data correct at February 4, 2019).

Here we can see the consistency in rank of surface between service points won percentage and aces per game numbers, with grass being the highest for both, and clay being considerably the lowest across both metrics.

Indoor hard has only marginally higher figures than outdoors, but that doesn’t stop players being specialists in the area. Last year, several lower level ATP or Challenger players - such as Mirza Basic and Marius Copil - gave very good accounts of themselves in main tour events played on indoors, while Joao Sousa a few years ago had a magnificent record in 250 level tournaments under a roof.

Which players benefit from indoor conditions?

With this in mind, understanding which players have benefitted from conditions indoors across the last two years would be a useful exercise, and using a comparison between player service and return data is a good way to do so.

The table below looks at the two year service and return points won for players in the ATP Top 50, split by both indoor and outdoor hard (correct at January 31, 2019), with the players listed able to generate combined numbers indoors greater than or equal to 2.0% more than their outdoor figures. The players in this list could potentially yield some value in the coming weeks indoors.

This data shows that ten players have been able to boast considerably better numbers indoors, with Martin Klizan leading the way. Last year, the Slovakian - a rather inconsistent competitor in general - reached the final indoors in St. Petersburg, beating Stan Wawrinka, Denis Shapovalov and Fabio Fognini on the way there - and won in Rotterdam in 2016. He’s also reached a semi-final indoors, and several quarter-finals, since the start of 2016.

We can also see that three French players - Gilles Simon, Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet - have better data indoors, and with several French indoor events taking place in the next few weeks, this trio could be one to keep an eye on.

For example, this week’s indoor tournament in Montpellier has had eight tournaments held there this decade. In these events, there have been six French winners and six French runners-up - only four non-French players in eight years have made the final.

Which players perform worse in indoor tournaments?

As will have been anticipated, there will also be players who have considerably worse records indoors, and who may be worth avoiding or opposing in the betting markets when they play tournaments on that surface.

The table below looks at the two year service and return points won for players in the ATP Top 50, split by both indoor and outdoor hard (correct at January 31, 2019), with the players listed able to generate combined numbers outdoors greater than or equal to 2.0% more than their indoor figures.

It is evident from this data that the worst players indoors deviate considerably more from their outdoor figures than the best players, and certainly, the likes of Pablo Carreno-Busta, Marco Cecchinato and Steve Johnson have really struggled during indoor conditions in the last couple of years.

What role does geography play?

The list generally comprises of return-orientated players and perhaps strangely to some, Americans. Very little professional tennis is played indoors in America, and perhaps this has some knock-on effect to their high profile competitors.

With the aforementioned Johnson, as well as Sam Querrey and John Isner all having a relatively serve-orientated game style, their failure to adapt to and thrive in slightly quicker conditions than average appears rather odd initially, but the lack of events indoors in America could be a logical explanation.

Hopefully the above article has given you some thoughts about how to evaluate players indoors during the next few weeks, and understanding which players are likely to thrive or struggle in the anticipated conditions is critical when entering the markets.