We’re into the quarterfinals of the Australian Open, where prices start being about pressure points. This is a market check on who is actually controlling rallies, serve-return balance and second-serve exchanges.
On the ATP side, the question is whether form still outweighs matchup risk. On the WTA side, the draw narrows to one true hinge match that decides where the real edge lives.
Odds by DraftKings Sportsbook.
Still a buy: Jannik Sinner (-125) to win
Sinner was my pre-tournament prediction, and I’m sticking with it. At this price, the case is built on where the points are actually being won. Through the tournament, Sinner has been dominant behind his serve, holding comfortably and avoiding prolonged pressure games, while still applying real stress on return. Opponents aren’t getting free service holds against him. Sinner is controlling matches from both ends of the court rather than relying on tiebreak variance or short bursts of brilliance.
The biggest edge remains on second-serve dominance. Sinner consistently wins neutral and defensive points when rallies extend past the first strike. It shows up in how often he’s creating break opportunities without needing opponents to implode. Sinner has depth, pace tolerance and patience in baseline exchanges.
Now, the cramping concern. It was valid. Long rallies, defensive court positioning, heat and extended points: that’s when cramping happens. Since then, his average rally length has dropped, he’s earning more cheap points on serve and service games are shorter. If Sinner were to meet Carlos Alcaraz, Sinner will be more stretched than he’s been so far. Alcaraz forces defensive sprints, changes height, spin and pulls you out of patterns.
The difference is how often Sinner has to live there. Sinner still controls serve-return balance. His serve placement, early backhand timing and willingness to step inside the baseline reduce the total number of defensive exchanges.
The price isn’t cheap, but it’s still fair.
WTA futures look: Iga Swiatek (+175) to reach final
Swiatek versus Elena Rybakina is the true hinge point of this half of the draw.
Rybakina’s serve and first-strike power always give her a puncher’s chance, but Swiatek consistently wins this matchup for the same reason she wins most high-level hard-court matches: she controls the second layer of the point.
When rallies extend beyond the first two shots, Swiatek’s return depth, foot speed and ability to redirect pace force Rybakina to hit extra balls she doesn’t want to hit. That pressure shows up on second serves and in late-set return games, where Swiatek repeatedly creates break chances even when Rybakina is serving well.
If Swiatek gets through Rybakina, she profiles as the stronger player against either remaining opponent. Jessica Pegula lacks the raw pace to hit through Swiatek consistently, while Amanda Anisimova brings volatility rather than sustained pressure. Swiatek’s return game and rally tolerance expose both profiles over a full match.
Swiatek -110 to beat Rybakina is the superior wager to +175 to reach the final. The semifinal is where the real risk and the real edge live. The futures price asks you to absorb extra variance for a marginal payout bump. The match price isolates the toughest obstacle and pays you directly for Swiatek’s matchup advantage.
Tien can stay competitive within sets because he doesn’t give away free points. He keeps first serves in play, protects his second serve well, and he’s willing to grind neutral rallies instead of pulling the trigger too early.
Zverev’s wins in this tournament have leaned more on holding serve than breaking often. Zverev can control sets without blowing them open. If Tien holds serve at a normal clip and forces Zverev to earn breaks, you’re looking at one extended set, a tiebreak, or Tien even snagging a set, putting this spread in a good spot.
WTA quarterfinal betting consideration: Aryna Sabalenka -5.5 games vs. Iva Jovic
Sabalenka hasn’t been tested. Every match tells the same story, she’s winning comfortably without needing her A-game. Errors or break points saved could be questioned, but when she’s holding serve at 80-90% and breaking at will, the rest is irrelevant.
Jovic’s wins came from opponents failing to hold serve, extended rallies where errors bail her out, and no sustained second serve punishment. Sabalenka does the opposite: breaking early and compressing sets. Once Sabalenka gets a single break per set, this snowballs fast.
