[Henrik]

As I usually do before slams, I looked at the betfair betting favorites on the exchange market (no bookies here, betters against betters). This time the top 8 favorites for AO turned out to be:

1) Nole
2) Rafa
3) Medvedev
4) Federer
5) Tsitsipas
6) Thiem
7) Kyrgios
8) Rublev

This time, I'm mostly interested in the position of the last two names. Kyrgios is often well ahead of his ranking in contexts such as these. To some extent it makes sense - in contrast to many other players, he has proven he has the game to take out the big names. However, it is no secret he can be vulnerable to lowly ranked players, and he has never made it passed the quarters in a slam. To make matters worse, the last time he made a slam quarter was five years ago. In my opinion, the betting market rates his chances far too high.

Turning to the spot below, we find Rublev who is an interesting case. He is fairly young and still undefeated for 2020. He just needs to beat a qualifier in the Adelaide final to enter AO with two back-to-back ATP 250 titles under his belt. To many, this may be enough to justify his position as the number 8 betting favorite. However, in all honesty, during this run, he hasn't beaten anyone he wasn't the favorite to defeat. In my eyes, Rublev is also overrated by the betting market.

So what do you think, are Rublev and Kyrgios overrated or not? Answer the poll and/or comment. (Current odds: Kyrgios 50-55 whereas Rublev varies a bit more 55-80.)

 

[bighax]

TBH, in the big 3 era, everyone except them has been overrated. But I don't think Kyrgios is any more overrated than the others. He has a peak level that can beat everyone, whereas Rublev is unproven in that department.

 

[Rumour]

My take is Kyrgios is way overrated for no good reason, while Rublev is only slightly overrated but logically so.

 

[Chokehater]

Kyrgios is overrated in terms of odds in every single slam for the last 4 years or so

The same can be said about Zverev and Dimitrov.

Rublev might be overrated here but I didn't notice him being ranked so high in the past.

 

[Manu_ser]

Andrey Rublev defeated Nick Kyrgios in straight sets when the latter had a golden opportunity to reach a first slam semi. Watched the highlights again the other day, nice match.

 

[NextGenKing]

Andrey Rublev defeated Nick Kyrgios in straight sets when the latter had a golden opportunity to reach a first slam semi. Watched the highlights again the other day, nice match.

Was at it. Kyrgios was crap off the ground

 

[mike_g]

Rublev is 7th in points earned in the last 6 months (after Wimbledon), and before that he was slowly coming back from an injury. He is maybe a bit overrated, but he probably should be in top 10 favorites. I mean, who you think has higher chances than him? Maybe Wawrinka because of experience (but Rublev beat him last time they met), RBA (but Rublev beat him last time they met), Goffin (would be cool, but I doubt he has a slam in him), maybe Dimitrov or Monfils (lol), maybe Berrettini (hmmm, OK, this is marginally possible, and maybe they are in the same league with Rublev...). Who else?

Why Kyrgios is rated that high, i don't understand anymore. Well, I've never understood anyway, but by now these are really totally unjustified odds. If De Minaur were in the draw, I'd have rated his chances way higher.

 

[George Stobbart]

So this is a discussion about their prices at AO without posting the prices? Beats me.

 

[JediFed]

Well, pretty much everyone who's not in the Big 3 has been overpriced. Since 2017 those have been sucker bets.

 

[Martin91]

I must be dreaming. Where is Zverev?

 

[Djoker]

No words about the Australian.
Rublev is a bit overhyped, and the bettors are following suit. Though I have a feeling that he'll reach at least R3 in AO this year.

 

[Yuma]

Kyrgios I feel does get better odds than he deserves. He hasn't shown a glimpse of being near winning a grand slam - whereas players like Nishikori or Anderson have looked way more dangerous in the slams on several occasions. A lot of people who I personally think have a better chance than Nick. He is good, no doubt, but his form in the short and long term doesn't really merit being #7 favourite.

As for Rublev, I haven't noticed it being a pattern for him, but based purely on 2020 form I can see why he would be quite high. Two titles is very impressive. I remember posting on here a couple of years ago, I thought Rublev would be the best out of Medvedev/Khachanov and himself. Despite that opinion I had not showing to be true so far, he has always had the look of a player capable of delivering on any stage, but of course we haven't seen that yet (injuries not helped at all).

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

Kyrgios is for sure overrated cause he hasn’t even made the quarters of a slam since 2015. He can beat anyone but lose to anyone as well. Slams is about consistency which he just doesn’t and probably never will have. As for Rublev, he’s playing pretty well atm so he’s not necessarily overrated as long as people aren’t saying he’ll win the AO.

 

[umbrellapub]

The joke about Kyrgios having potential to win GS is well spread and some fall for it. Explains his extremely short odds of 55 at the time. You would get better odds by backing him each round.

Rublev can be backed at 55 too and its the same story. Back him each round instead for much bigger odds.

So both are short - holding no value.

 

[Rumour]

Both lost today in R4, so one could argue they were equally overrated in the end.

 

[Henrik]

Well, in light of the recent results, I would say that Kyrgios lived up to his odds in some sense. He was never the favorite to beat Nadal. Making it to the round of four and giving Nadal a match (taking one set and playing two tie-breaks is reasonably competitive in my book) is enough to justify his betting odds. Rublev is a different story, as he was crushed by a player that is not one of the top-4 favorites. In retrospect, it does look a bit silly to think of Rublev as one of the top-8 contenders. Unless Zverev surprises everyone by winning AO convincingly, not reaching five games in a single set looks rather poor by the young Russian.

 

[Nepoznati Knez]

Blatantly, Zverev was really poor at Slams and Rublev on a winning strike....

Even if fatigue always happens, Rublev looked like some easy money.

Hating Nadal was the only obvious reason for such an overhype on Kyrgios...

Defeating Khachanov was a semi miracle, and Nadal is way better.

 

[Rumour]

Well, in light of the recent results, I would say that Kyrgios lived up to his odds in some sense. He was never the favorite to beat Nadal. Making it to the round of four and giving Nadal a match (taking one set and playing two tie-breaks is reasonably competitive in my book) is enough to justify his betting odds.

That's one way to look at it but keep in mind, much of the Kyrgios hype is based on his previous wins against the Big 3, specifically Nadal. There is bigger belief in him pulling off the upset compared to other youngsters, especially as he's done it in a slam before.

In that context, I don't see the Aussie losing to the top seed (with a virtually identical scoreline to their previous Bo5 match) as a particularly worthy result for him, when it was already implicit in the odds that he'd have to overcome at least one of the Big 3 on his path to the title.

Rublev is a different story, as he was crushed by a player that is not one of the top-4 favorites. In retrospect, it does look a bit silly to think of Rublev as one of the top-8 contenders. Unless Zverev surprises everyone by winning AO convincingly, not reaching five games in a single set looks rather poor by the young Russian.

Yes, hindsight is 50-50 and all that... But Zverev is a really bad matchup for Rublev so his task was perhaps as tough as Kyrgios' - or even more so as there was no prior morale-boosting win to draw confidence from (don't think he's taken even a set). Also, considering previous Slamrev performances, bettors possibly thought there was a good chance the Russian would face a different, lesser ranked opponent this round.

Overall, Kyrgios did a little better than I thought he would, Rublev a little worse.

 

[FatchMixer]

I can give you the perspective as a former sportsbook manager and professional tennis trader:

1) Kyrgios is extremely difficult to set odds for because of his unpredictability. Theoretically, he would be the favourite against pretty much anybody outside of the Big 3 and then maybe Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, Wawrinka, etc. depending on the conditions. But, you do not know if he is going to show up with 100% effort or not. You also have to remember that odds are based on public betting patterns as well as statistical probabilities, so Kyrgios' odds do go a bit lower in Australia because more Aussies are watching and could be more likely to bet on him.

2) I thought Rublev was massively overpriced against against Zverev (especially with the H2H) and before the match I had Zverev as 1.5 favourite. The thing is, the narrative of Zverev folding in slams, his poor showing at the ATP Cup (which IMO should be discounted) and Rublev's success in Adelaide made the more casual bettor interested in Rublev. I believe this was a case of the oddsmakers playing mind game with bettors, making Rublev the favourite to gravitate more people towards him.