Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury vs David Stevenson / Marcus Willis prediction for July 1, 2026: Our Monte Carlo simulation ran 10,000 game iterations and projects David Stevenson / Marcus Willis 0 - Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury 0. David Stevenson / Marcus Willis is favored with a 53.7% win probability.
David Stevenson / Marcus Willis
1500
Grass Elo
VS
Grass • ATP
Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury
1500
Grass Elo
Match Win Probability
David Stevenson / Marcus WillisAriel Behar / Joe Salisbury
Grass
Surface
ATP Wimbledon Doubles
Tournament
10,000
Simulations
Calibrated accuracy at this confidence: 54.2% (6,507 games)
Match Context
Tournament
ATP Wimbledon Doubles
Surface
Grass
Format
Best of 5 · ATP
Surface Elo Ratings (Grass)
Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury
David Stevenson / Marcus Willis
Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury leads by 0 Elo points on Grass
Serve & Return Analysis
Serve Points Won % (SPW) is the single most predictive metric in tennis. ATP average on Grass: 63.5%
Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury SPW
65.6%
Above tour avg
David Stevenson / Marcus Willis SPW
65.6%
Above tour avg
● Serve statistics are nearly identical — expect a close match
Market Odds & Model Edge
Ariel Behar / Joe Salisbury ML
+132
Model: 46%
Edge: +3.2%
David Stevenson / Marcus Willis ML
-161
Model: 54%
Edge: -8.0%
Key Matchup Factors
- Players are closely matched (0-point Elo gap)
- Grass surface amplifies serve advantage — expect fewer breaks, more tiebreaks
- David Stevenson / Marcus Willis has the stronger serve profile on this surface
Surface Elo v1.0 · Barnett-Clarke serve model · 10,000 simulations · ATP
Edge Analysis
Moneyline
David Stevenson / Marcus Willis 53.7%
--
More Projections Today
How this prediction was generated: This page shows output from the Olympus Bets ATP/WTA Tennis Monte Carlo engine. Each game is simulated 10,000 times using real-time team data, injury reports, and current odds. Probabilities are calibrated using Bayesian methods and sized via the Kelly Criterion. Probabilities are calibrated using Bayesian methods and sized via the Kelly Criterion. Full methodology →