The Clutch Defense of Emma Navarro

The dizzying rise of Emma Navarro continues. She finished 2023 at a career-high 32nd in the rankings, rose to 23rd before Indian Wells, and now, on the back of yesterday’s upset of Aryna Sabalenka, she could crack the top 20 on Monday.

Not long ago, many fans thought of Navarro as a vulture, riding a bunch of small-tournament victories to an inflated ranking. Now, with back-to-back wins over Elina Svitolina and Sabalenka on one of the sport’s biggest stages–and not on clay, her favorite surface–the doubters are quieting down. The American already ranks 19th on the Elo table, another list she’ll continue to climb when this week’s results go in the books.

Yesterday’s triumph was less straightforward than it looks at first glance. The scoreline–6-3, 3-6, 6-2–hides just how close it was. Navarro won just 83 points to Sabalenka’s 80. The second-seeded Belarussian lost the match despite winning return points at a slightly higher clip than her opponent. Sabalenka’s ratio of winners to unforced errors was 38:28, the type of attack that has won her innumerable matches, and one that looks better than Navarro’s 21:16.

The underdog appeared to be the clever, resourceful player on court, making improbable returns and outlasting her more aggressive foe on the long points. Yet the numbers don’t bear out much of that, either. 20 points lasted at least seven strokes, and each player won 10. Sabalenka won five of the longest eight. Navarro’s returning won the day, as we shall see in a moment, but it was not particularly impressive against a far-from-peak Sabalenka. In the last year, opponents have gotten 70% of Aryna’s serves back in play. Navarro managed 67%.

Despite all that, Navarro walked off court with a smile on her face. What worked?

Timing is everything

The top-level answer is that Navarro converted break points, and Sabalenka didn’t. The underdog seized four of her five chances. In each game that she generated a break point, she secured the break. Sabalenka, on the other hand, earned more opportunities but took advantage of just two. She squandered a chance to put the first set back on serve at 5-3, and she could have erased Navarro’s break advantage at 3-1 in the decider. In neither of those games did the American slip again.

Break points, like points in tiebreaks, tend to be more complicated than average. Servers are a bit more careful to put balls in the court–and thus more conservative–and returners are hyper-focused. A high-pressure point is less likely to end with an unreturned serve; long rallies are more common. Navarro–with some help from her opponent–took this to an extreme.

The American, despite putting slightly fewer serves back in play than Sabalenka’s average opponent, kept the point going on each one of her five break points. She also returned every serve at 15-30, three of four at 30-30, and both at deuce. Here’s how Sabalenka’s rate of unreturned serves looks when separated by whether she was in trouble–defined as whether Navarro had already won two points in the game:

Situation       Points  Unret  Unret%  
Not In Trouble      51     16   31.4%  
In Trouble          22      4   18.2%

Even that distinction understates things. Two of Sabalenka’s unreturned serves in the “in trouble” category came at 40-30. When the second seed was really on the ropes, Navarro got the ball back on 15 of 17 tries. Pressure points are less likely to end quickly, but not by such an enormous margin.

Whether Sabalenka became uncharacteristically shaky under pressure, Navarro morphed into a return savant, or it was pure dumb luck, those few points determined the outcome of the match. In extended rallies, as we’ve seen, the American was not the overwhelmingly superior player, but that’s not the point. Sabalenka dominates most of her opponents by winning more cheap points than they do. If she wins just half of the rest of the points–on her serve and her opponent’s–she comes out on top. Take away most of the cheap points, and her edge is gone. Navarro won 24 of 49 return points–roughly half–when she put the ball back in play. Because she was so resourceful at key moments, she held Sabalenka to just 54% of serve points at 30-all or later.

Lessons

There are so many ways this match could have ended differently. Sabalenka could’ve served a little better under pressure, or Navarro could have returned a little worse. The whole scenario was made more likely by the conditions, slow-playing Indian Wells courts and balls, combined with wind that distracted the favorite more than the underdog.

Another culprit on the Belarussian side was Aryna’s plus-one. Eleven of her unforced errors came on the first shot after her serve, many of them wild and inexcusable, one of them two points away from defeat. It is to Navarro’s credit that she got so many serves back, but a more typical Sabalenka performance would have put away more of the desperate returns.

This is all a description of what happened last night, not speculation about a trend, or any kind of prediction. Sabalenka usually hits about as many unreturnable serves in pressure situations as she does at other times. In the limited data we have so far on Navarro, there’s no evidence that she is much better returning at key moments. Clutch performance in tennis is only rarely persistent: It’s easy to identify matches or tournaments when a player was particularly good or bad when it mattered most, more or less impossible to forecast it. If we hit rewind and replayed the match from the start, Navarro might still pull the upset, but it wouldn’t develop the same way.

What the match does give us is a little more evidence that Navarro is here to stay. She drew even with the second-best player in the world, staying calm enough throughout the proceedings to deliver her best tennis when the stakes were highest. She might not win a rematch with Sabalenka, but her position in the top 20–whether or not the WTA makes it official next week–is no fluke.

* * *

Subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email: