Bleacher Report - Articles by Ben Nandy

French Open: Another Tennis Betting Scandal

Ben Nandy — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:25:12 -0500

At first assessment, the French Open organizers have a point in suing three big European sports betting companies, trying to ban gambling at this year's tournament.

But if the French Tennis Federation would look a little deeper into the issue, they would understand how preposterous of an idea this is, and how this slope is more slippery than the finest European clay.

Essentially, after years of recurring instances of alleged corruption, paranoid tennis officials don't know what to do about them. So, they're shooting the messenger.

The integrity of tennis is in a fragile state, after allegations of match-fixing and unusual betting patterns have created stirs. Four Italian players who have been found guilty for betting on tennis are not top-tier players, nor were they admittedly betting on their own matches.

ESPN reports that years earlier, the ATP took some preventative measures after several suspicious bets by Austrian gambler, Martin Fuhrer, against his friend, lowly touring pro, Irakli Labadze. This happened quite a bit, until 2004 when suspicion was high enough for several bookies to ban bets from Fuhrer. Then the tennis higher-ups seemed to leave the issue be, hoping for a magic decline in corruption.

These events were more like blips on the tennis radar, as the players involved were mediocre. Their rankings and limited fame kept these incidents from causing panic.

Nikolay Davydenko, on the other hand, is the best player in Russia, and was ranked #4 in the world when cloud came over his first round match at a small tour event in Sopot, Poland. Six-figure bets against Davydenko reportedly came in to British online gambling firm, Betfair, even after Davydenko won the first set against the ATP's 87th ranked player. The betting patterns screamed corruption to regular tennis betters and analysts.

According to a recent ESPN investigation, 20% of the bets against Davydenko that day came from gamblers in Russia. It's looking much worse. We wouldn't know stuff like this, if not for Betfair being proactive and providing the ATP with betting records. Yet, the desperate tennis authorities want to penalize companies like Betfair.

ESPN reports the ATP took some preventative measures after several suspicious bets by Austrian gambler, Martin Fuhrer, against his friend, touring pro, Irakli Labadze. This happened quite a bit, until 2004 when suspicion was high enough for several bookies to ban bets from Fuhrer. Then the tennis higher-ups seemed to leave the issue be, hoping for a magic decline in corruption.

The cloud over Davydenko's match last August apparently was not new. The difference now, is that non-betting tennis fans understand the issue and its seriousness. It took betting irregularities in the match of a premier player to bring the issue to the forfront. Now, like a fat guy chasing down a drop shot, the tennis authorities are ungracefully trying to ensure integrity.

Baseball's steroid scandal would not be such if it were only some minor leaguers who were suspected. The same goes for this betting scandal that has tennis authorities in a panic. They're lashing out at the closest available party that has anything to do with tennis betting, the betting companies.

This would be senseless, and it would actually foster corruption in the sport. Betfair has cooperated with ATP tour officials, making betting records available. The betting companies should be viewed by the tour as allies.

Why crack down on an illegal industry by going after the legally operated companies who want to help end corruption?

If a match were fixed, wouldn't these gambling outlets be a savior? Wouldn't they be instrumental in building a case against the shady players and gamblers? At least there would be a way to track betting patterns. Heck, betting records are a big reason why these allegations have come up. Without them, where does the investigation of match-fixing begin?

If the tennis institutions consistently try to keep these outlets from taking bets on tour events, the entire tennis gambling industry will move underground. Yeah, that's really what we need right now, isn't it? Match-fixing would go unnoticed, or at least unprovable, as betting would not be regulated and official records would not exist. The match-fixers would then become the bookies, creating new problems, ones that tennis would not recover from.

Why Andy Roddick Will Never Beat Roger Federer

Ben Nandy — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:56:50 -0500

Andy Roddick may figure out the game of professional tennis in time to make me feel like an idiot for writing this article.

As it stands now, he hasn't figured out enough to beat that Roger guy, and he probably never will (again).

Yes, Roddick beat him once in 2004 in Montreal, when Federer was still on his way to being the tennis god he is now.

Federer's 15 wins against Roddick will increase, and no, Roddick is not "due" for a win.

Here's why I think this...

15-Love

Roddick hits hard balls to win points; Federer hits a lot of balls to win matches

Roddick is an amazing athlete. He hits harder than Roger. He has more raw speed and strength than Roger. He is more intense than Roger.

Still, Andy will never beat Roger at anything, ever again. Not even Nintendo Wii Tennis. Not even checkers.

Any tennis fan, or sports fan for that matter, can pick up what I'm laying down here.

Federer knows how to win. Roddick knows how to win. They know how to win in different ways, but when they get together, Federer's way trumps that of Roddick.

Roddick will take the court with his hair on fire, and hopefully stay hot long enough to win. This might work against Kei Nishikori in San Jose, but not against Roger Federer at Wimbledon.

Roddick loses his head a lot easier than Federer.

By now, Federer knows he owns Roddick, so having his serve broken is no big deal in his eyes. When Roddick gets broken, there is an urgency to rebound before things gets out of control.

Federer senses the urgency, so he tests Roddick with steadiness. If steadiness were a core college subject, Roddick would repeat it every semester, only to fail each time.

30-Love

Federer waits. Roddick hates.

Roddick can outclass most tennis players, but mental toughness is not his forte.

Watch the guy in a match, and through the TV screen, you'll feel that spastic energy. It's simply his approach to tennis. He either blows you off the court, or he doesn't.

If he doesn't, leaving him to rely on his mental game, it often does not end well.

In short, if you're one of the fifty or so tour players that can hang with Roddick, you can beat him.

This energy is what kills Roddick in a match against Federer.

When Roddick tears out of the gate with aces and winners, Federer maintains. Federer holds serve until Roddick gives him an opportunity. Believe me, it will happen. It always does.

40-Love

Roddick is hopeful. Federer is certain.

In the 2007 US Open quarters, the American played huge, but Federer simply managed Roddick through a pair of tie-breakers, before walking away with the match in the third set.

It always seems to go this way. It's close at first, before Roddick finally rolls over, showing his alligator-tattooed belly to the dominant Swiss.

It's weird how Federer is only a year older than Roddick, but seems to have his act together in a way that suggests he's the big senior and Roddick's the wedgy-prone freshman with a bit more growing up to do.

During a match between the two, you can tell Federer knows he's going to win. Roddick hopes.

He hopes for a tie-breaker to go his way, and he hopes for a lot of aces. The two each approach the match the same way everytime, and the results are never any different.

Why should they be?

Game

Federer bends. Roddick breaks (not serve).

Roddick has nothing new to show Federer. Federer has nothing new to show Roddick.

They know what each other has in terms of weapons, confidence, and stamina. I'm sure Federer is just fine with this scenario.

Roddick continues to try to cram the square learning-toy into the circular hole until he gets tired, and Federer plays solid until the mental breakdown happens.

Back to my original point.

Andy Roddick will never beat Roger Federer (again), because he's not the kind of thinking man that Federer is.

Roddick is not the type to change speeds mentally to figure out his opponent.

I have been watching him play for a long time, and I'm not sure if he completely understands the mental game of tennis, and I'm not sure if he knows what kind of personal reinvention it will take to beat Federer.

No one knows for certain, except Roger Federer himself. And boy, is he certain.