Sabalenka vs Zheng: Wuhan Final Analysis (WTA 1000)

Wuhanbeatable Sabalenka threepeats and remains "the mountain that Zheng is yet to overcome"

Back in Wuhan for the first time in 5 years, Aryna Sabalenka was greeted as “old friend”, in reference to her unique tournament history. She arrived as the defending champion and with a perfect 12-0 record, following back-to-back titles in 2018 and 2019.

source: WTA Tour

Sabalenka was also welcomed with a second nickname, earned from more recent events. Given her dominant victories over Olympic champion and local favourite Qinwen Zheng at this year’s Australian Open final and the last two editions of the US Open, Chinese fans dubbed the top-seed "the mountain that Zheng is yet to overcome".

"It's nice to hear that! I will continue working to make sure she cannot overcome this mountain”.

— Sabalenka’s amused reaction, at the start of the week

Destiny had it that by week’s end Sabalenka and Zheng would meet again, not at a Major for a change, but to decide the WTA 1000 Wuhan champion.

Part 1 - Sabalenka builds a 6-3, 2-1 lead

For the first hour, it certainly looked like we were witnessing a replay of their previous encounters.

Overpowered, Zheng sent too many central balls that Sabalenka dispatched for 4 winners plus 7 groundstrokes that forced errors (marked by yellow circle below).

Sabalenka’s point-winning (left side) and point-losing shots (right side) from the first set and the first 3 games of the second set. Ball direction is from bottom to top.

Sabalenka controlled the middle and was the superior “down-the-line” striker. The latter was particularly significant as both players often rallied crosscourt to open up the court for line attacks.

→ Sabalenka’s crosscourt backhands pull Zheng gradually away from center, creating an opening for a backhand down the line winner.

📺 source: WTA Tv

During the first set and the first 3 games of the second set, Sabalenka racked up 8 winning down-the-line groundstrokes with only 2 unforced errors. She was also efficient when playing crosscourt.

On the other side of the net, Zheng accumulated 5 winning line groundstrokes with the same number of unforced errors.

Stats from the first set and the first 3 games of the second set. Intended direction of winning shots (= winners+forcing shots) and unforced errors on groundstrokes (returns and volleys/overheads are not included). Down-the-line is considered broadly and includes more central shots that land on the same court half.

Overall, Sabalenka reached a set and break lead by conceding just 5 points in her first 6 serve games and building a 27-16 advantage in rallies.

Part 2 - Zheng breaks, wins a set against Sabalenka

With Sabalenka leading 6-3, 2-1, fears of a one-sided final were rapidly abandoned as Zheng put on her “climbing gear”.

In the 4th game of the second set, after 32 unrewarding return games that included 5 missed break points, Zheng finally broke Sabalenka’s serve! A moment that redefined the match and, possibly, their rivalry.

No doubt that Sabalenka played a loose game - started with her only double fault of the match, followed by a “serve+1” unforced error - but Zheng must be credited for pouncing on the opportunity at such “make-or-break” time.

At 0/30, Zheng hit a spectacular return winner off a 1st serve to create 3 break points…

… and then grabbed a love break by simply finding good depth on the return and taking the ball away from the middle with her “return+1” backhand.

From this moment until the end of the set, several metrics reversed.

Zheng found renewed efficiency in down-the-line strikes, hitting 6 winning groundstrokes with 2 unforced errors. Sabalenka dropped to 3 winning groundstrokes with 5 unforced errors in line attempts and did even worse in crosscourt drives.

Stats from the 4th game of the second set until the end of the set. Intended direction of winning shots (= winners+forcing shots) and unforced errors on groundstrokes (returns and volleys/overheads are not included). Down-the-line is considered broadly and includes more central shots that land on the same court half.

Enjoying a 21-11 edge in baseline duels, Zheng won 24 of 40 rallies played.

Sabalenka’s returns in play against 1st serves got a nasty tumble from 71% to 25%. By contrast, Zheng raised hers, even if slightly, from 65% to 82%. This improvement and the fact Zheng finally grabbed that elusive first break helped the Chinese create break points in 3 of her next 4 return games.

During the 6th game of set 2, Zheng accrued 4 break point chances. In all of them, Sabalenka served wide, running successful “V attacks” in three and hitting a backhand crosscourt winner going behind in the other.

“V attack”: a wide serve followed by a “serve+1” hit into the open court on the opposite side, forcing the returner to cover a lot of ground.

→ BP #1 at 2-3, set 2

→ BP #2 at 2-3, set 2

→ BP #3 at 2-3, set 2

→ BP #4 at 2-3, set 2

The 4th break point save was followed by an unreturned serve and a T ace, so Sabalenka held after 18 points, for a 3-3 tie.

With Sabalenka repeating almost the same formula to save all these break points, we couldn’t avoid going back and check how she played the original break point at 2-1. Yes, she didn’t serve wide, instead opting to go down the T to Zheng’s forehand!

Two games later, Sabalenka faced break point yet again. It was played on the Deuce side and behind a 2nd serve. Regardless, Sabalenka served wide and went for another “V attack”.

→ BP at 3-4, set 2