Is there too much betting on tennis matches. Is there temptation by players to make a quick buck, Should betting be allowed in tennis

---

www.kingarthurusa.com

In order to determine if there is too much betting we would have to establish a criteria for normal.  There's the rub.  As a libertarian at heart I say sure, why not allow betting, if they allow betting on everything else.  eg Sumo, horses, dogs, football, basketball, and lets not forget the stock market, etc.   It will generate more interest.  The ATP tour website already hosts a numbers game of sorts by asking fans to try to pick the draw.  I have participated in this and it's fun but I find it a subtle incentive to someone who thinks they can pick matches to start picking them for profit.

My guess about the temptation to make a quick buck is that it will exist more at the lower levels where players are underpaid.  I don't see anyone throwing a grand slam final, but who knows.  Legacy is more important than currency.

My biggest concern if betting was occurring in tennis would be the infiltration into the game by organized crime.  People who live in or are from NYC probably would not really understand that.

It's a bit of a double-edged sword because you look at the popularity of the NFL or the NCAA basektball tournament in this country and a part of that is due to gambling. That's why virtually every newspaper prints the spreads on NFL games, why every NFL pre-game show presents picks from the experts (though some don't pick using the spread). It stands to reason it helps their ratings because if you bet on a game you have a vested interest in the outcome and therefore are more likely to watch it and the more people watch your sport the better it is for the popularity and potential revenue for the sport (sponsorship money, ad revenue, TV dollars, etc.)

Even people who don't watch sports on TV will sometimes be in the office Super Bowl pool or fill in an NCAA bracket sheet. So you can make a strong case that gambling can potentially help a sport in terms of its visibility and exposure. The problem with tennis is (theoretically) it should be one of the easiest sports to fix. I mean just look at what you saw last week in Shanghai with 9 players retiring. Can't remember the last time that happened. Now, some online betting sites adopt the all bets are off in terms of a retirement, but others don't. It can raise issues on the integrity of the sport, which is obviously not good.

In general, do not have a problem with betting on sports - states in this country essentially endorse gambling with lotteries and more areas are licensing casinos - and have bet on many sports. The issue in tennis is obviously they've already have had some questionable cases (the Davydenko match in Poland, the Kafelnikov-Vicente match years back, etc.) and it is a sport that is easier to fix than a team sport so that's the obvious danger.

Whether it is legitimized gambling or not people are always going to bet on sports. I'm sure someone won big when David beat Goliath. Used to work with a guy who would be on anything. You'd be walking down the street and he'd bet on how many cars would pass by the time you got to the end of the block, or bet on what the high temperature would be in central park on a given day, put a garbage can in the corfner and bet on who would make the most baskets out of 20 with a crumpled up piece of paper, etc. It's kind of a tricky proposition for sports because there is a sizeable gambling interest and there are some obvious benefits to it, but also clearly some very real dangers as well.

I am not a fan of betting on tennis matches (unless my friend Redhead will take me up on a bet one of these days......<sigh>..........)  But I don't think betting is the worst thing in pro tennis.

 

No, what is bad is the  total mismanagement of the pro game. Why for instance, when I Iog in, and the home Yahoo page comes up, do I see Caroline Wozniacki's pic, and how she might get 'punished' for what some consider a sporting gesture?  Tennis seems to get in the mainstream headlines for all the wrong reasons.

 

First, the reason for the investigation is because of the WTA's abysmal decision to allow on court coaching. Very, very, very few people have come out in favor of this, or think it is a good idea. It isn't . It's horrible. So Caroline's dad urges her to pull out of the tournament, even though Caroline is on her way to victory. Caroline does default while leading 7-5,5-0 (strange!) because she believes she won't be able to play on in the event. And she wants to give her an opponent an opportunity to continue. While I don't agree with Wozniacki's decision....I mean short of her breaking her ankle and having to be wheel-chaired off the court, I think you have to stick it out and see what happens.....in the grand scheme of things she did something that many would consider sporting. Caroline seems like a nice girl. Just hope she remembers that no nice girl ever made it tot he top of women's tennis.

 

Anyhoo, because the mics on court picked up her father's urging her to quit, and betting spiked on Caroline's opponent, Anne Kremer, there is now an investigation. See WTA, what happens when you institute a stupid situation like on court coaching!  Also, are there people out there who are really betting on 1st round matches of WTA events?  If they are that desperate to part with their money, I could suggest some local charities that would be better served than some betting outfit. 

 

I believe Wozniacki will be cleared of any wrongdoing. Just seems a shame that she'll get notoriety for this, and tennis gets another little black eye as a result. I think the whole doping situation in tennis is very screwy. Too many (little) betting 'scandals' have emerged. 

 

There is so much more to tennis than the news that seems to get out these days.

Betfair has to stop taking bets once a match starts...or not pay off on matches that are not completed..There might be savvy gamblers just waiting for injury timeouts,  and taking a chance that someone winning will not finish the match..

At 7-5, 5-0 the odds on Wozniacki losing were probably huge and a gambler hearing info like that from papa Woz could make a fortune...

The on court coaching can go too..not a big fan..99% of the women playing dont have a plan B, no coach has come up wiith a plan b yet, so theyre just coming out there basically for the mental part, and in Tennis at the top level, it should be figure it out yourself

They never should have had on court coaching in the first place. It is part of dumbing down tennis. Can anyone imagine Rod Laver needing a coach in a match? Preposterous.

The NFL will never admit it but gambling is the lifeblood of the NFL. Every time I hear Commissioner Roger Goodell dance around the issue, I am reminded of the classic line: "There is gambling in the casino?". No other sport has the plethora of programs devoted to the over and under, the casino gambling and the off shore gambling and down to the office pools. Take away gambling and the NFL loses about 35% of its viewership.

Tennis can at least argue that almost all of its fans are there for love of the sport. There was alot of strange factual circumstances that one could be suspicious of Davydenko in the match that caused a commotion. But Davydenko would have to be nuts to give up a career and millions of dollars for a payout from one match. That's why I don't think he did it. In fact I am sure he did not.

Roger Goodell makes a laughing stock of himself when he pretends that a combination of casino gambling, off shore gambling, office pool gambling and perhaps mob gambling is not what drives the popularity of NFL football. It is a little like a jockey in a horse race who says the jockey's strategy and tactics is why people watch the Kentucky Derby.

Roger Goodell is like the piano player at the brothel who is shocked at what goes on upstairs.

Another driven tennis daddy giving bad advice. Playing one more game would not have damaged her for life. Instead he opened up a can of worms. As for betting on tennis there was always one Russian I was very suspicious about and it was not Davydenko. He would get to semis and then suddenly wilt. Later he went on to try to play the poker tour and I have no idea where he is now.

If you are talking about Kafelnikov, you should be able to find him in the Hall of Fame pretty soon

Kafelnikov did have some strange performances where he got deep in the tournament then just didn't seem to be there. But what a great player he was when at his best. He was one of the few guys who could really dominate Rios, I remember that, and sure Dobey would too, but Agassi always was trouble for Kafelnikov especially in American tournaments.

Kafelnikov was at the Davis Cup final in Portland he looked heavy but he did a really good Biofile, he was always hard to deal with as an active player but seems like a nice good guy in retirement. I remmeber in Red's book "Break Point" how Spadea said Kafelnikov loved to practice non stop, he lived to practice. He also played a ton of singles and doubles too for most of his career. A first ballot Hall of Famer for sure.   

---

:

Yep, I remember that Kafelnikov gave Rios fits. It was kind of odd that Rios played great against Agassi and he had wins over Kuerten and Rafter but Kafelnikov just gave him fits. Kafelnikov was kind of odd in that he didn't just overpower guys the way Sampras or Safin could so in their primes but he was just smooth as silk and before you knew it, the match was over. I might be mistaken but I kind of recall that around 1995 or so, Kafelnikov had a match with Sampras in the French Open and he just totally neutralized Pete's power and won the match.

Scoop:

Kafelnikov did have some strange performances where he got deep in the tournament then just didn't seem to be there. But what a great player he was when at his best. He was one of the few guys who could really dominate Rios, I remember that, and sure Dobey would too, but Agassi always was trouble for Kafelnikov especially in American tournaments.

Kafelnikov was at the Davis Cup final in Portland he looked heavy but he did a really good Biofile, he was always hard to deal with as an active player but seems like a nice good guy in retirement. I remmeber in Red's book "Break Point" how Spadea said Kafelnikov loved to practice non stop, he lived to practice. He also played a ton of singles and doubles too for most of his career. A first ballot Hall of Famer for sure.   

 

Kafelnikov, a first ballot Hall of Famer for sure ?!  I am not so sure about that, for a couple of reasons. Then again, I think they have lowered the standards. (Bob Lutz and Peter Fleming are on the ballot for next year. And while very fine doubles players, I am sorry, not HoF credentials.)

 

I always thouht he played too much to be fresh when it mattered, i.e. the finals of tournaments. Some of the Russians have always played too much. Always thought it was th elure of ca$h that kept them going. Makes you wonder how much of their earnings they did have to fork over to Russian federation (or mafia). 

 

Kafelnikov will probably get into the HoF one day. Two majors, at least one in doubles. Ranked #1. But I just don't know if he is a for sure first balloter. Peggy isn't th only one w/raised eyebrows about him. And raised eyebrows can raise questions about getting into the Hall.

Kafelnikov...

Olympic gold

DC win

# 1 ranking

2 majors in singles

bringing tennis boom to Russia

You question his career and Chang got in for 1 major and bringing tennis to China...If Kafelnikov doesnt get in, the HOF is a sham

I would be very, very surprised if Kafelnikov does not get in. First, off the top of my head, I can't name a single Russian who is in the Hall now. Will go look that up to double check, but I can't think of any Russian right now in the Hall. He was important because so many Russians who came after him - even women like Sharapova, Zvonareva, etc. have cited him as an influence.

Always felt like there was something sketchy about that one match with Vicente because he had owned Vicente before that and there were allegations money came in late on Vicente and from what I remember they did investigate it, but neither player, from what I remember, was charged. Came across this quote from Kafelnikov about it:

Asked about the allegations at the (2003) Madrid Masters, Kafelnikov angrily denied any wrong-doing.

"I think it's all bullshit. That's all I can tell you," Kafelnikov said. "Whatever the people (are) doing, you know, web sites or anywhere in the bookmaker's office, it's not my fault. All I can tell you (is that) tennis players have never been involved in the match fixing, especially in our sport. We are playing for our living. I'm completely hurting myself fixing any kind of matches. How much money I make in each tournaments, it's my money. I don't even have the explanation for what's happening right now."

Looking at his career based on his numbers, the guy should certainly get into the Hall - especially when you consider he won multiple majors in singles and doubles. Not too many men who played after 1990 can make that claim. Also, you have to think for sure Safin will get in and Kafelnikov's career - in terms of total titles won and total majors won (including doubles) - is better. He won 26 total singles titles to Safin's 15. I think Safin's highs were higher - when Safin was on and at his best I think he was better - but in terms of consistency Kafelnikov tended to be more consistent.

It's a valid criticism that he overplayed. At one point, I think he had led the ATP for 4 or 5 straight years in total matches (singles and doubles) played and certainly he was not one of those guys who subscribed to the "I've gotta peak for the majors" philosophy as he would just play week in and week out. Always felt his strokes were a bit too mechanical and you could frequently tell when he was ready to check out of a match as he would just start playing really fast and almost accelerate his way through to get off the court quickly, but his overall achievements warrant he gets in and he should get in, IMO. 

I'm a huge Sabatini fan but she only won one major and was inducted almost as soon as she was eligible and part of it was she was pivotal in promoting tennis in Argentina, but really with a few exceptions (Paola Suarez, Patricia Tarabini, Gisela Dulko, Gorrachategui, Clarissa Fernandez had the one good run at Roland Garros, etc.) it's not like her success changed Argentina's women's tennis though certainly she made it much more visible and she's still a huge star today. I'm a huge Rafter fan, but he only won 11 career titles.

I would go so far as to speculate/bet three guys from Russia's first Davis Cup championship team - Kafelnikov, Safin and captain Shamil Tarpischev (as a contributor) - will all eventually be inducted into the Hall of Fame.