The ASB Classic 2026 in Auckland is where the WTA season properly gets moving, and this page is built to follow it match by match, day by day. From January 5–11, you’ll find every women’s singles score here, updated throughout the tournament as the draw narrows and the stakes rise.
ASB Classic 2026 Results and Daily Updates
This article serves as a complete results hub for the ASB Classic, tracking every round from the opening matches through to the final. Scores are updated as they happen, with the full schedule and draw context included so it’s always clear who’s through, who’s out, and what’s coming next.
Auckland has a habit of revealing form early. As the seeded players enter and the field sharpens, the scorelines here often tell you more than any preview — especially about who is carrying rhythm and confidence toward the Australian Open.
Main Draw Results
Auckland Final 2026
January 11
Elina Svitolina (Ukr) defeats Xinyu Wang (Chn) 6-3 7-6(6) winning her 20th WTA career final. ↓
Svitolina vs Wang – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Svitolina | Wang |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.03 | 0.97 |
| Serve Rating | 299 | 287 |
| Aces | 7 | 5 |
| Double Faults | 3 | 1 |
| 1st Serve % | 66% (54/82) | 66% (45/68) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 72% (39/54) | 69% (31/45) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 57% (16/28) | 58% (14/24) |
| Break Points Saved | 100% (4/4) | 50% (1/2) |
| Service Games | 100% (11/11) | 90% (9/10) |
| Ace % | 8.5% | 7.4% |
| Double Fault % | 3.7% | 1.5% |
| Return Rating | 133 | 71 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 31% (14/45) | 28% (15/54) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 42% (10/24) | 43% (12/28) |
| Break Points Won | 50% (1/2) | 0% (0/4) |
| Return Games | 10% (1/10) | 0% (0/11) |
| Pressure Points | 83% (5/6) | 17% (1/6) |
| Service Points | 67% (55/82) | 66% (45/68) |
| Return Points | 34% (23/68) | 33% (27/82) |
| Total Points | 52% (78/150) | 48% (72/150) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 1 |
| Max Points In A Row | 4 | 5 |
| Service Games Won | 100% (11/11) | 90% (9/10) |
| Return Games Won | 10% (1/10) | 0% (0/11) |
| Total Games Won | 57% (12/21) | 43% (9/21) |
| Max Games In A Row | 3 | 1 |
| Match Duration | 1h 44m | |
Where and When to Watch?
| Region / Country | Local Start Time | Broadcast Partner |
|---|---|---|
| Africa | 05:00 Sunday | SuperSport |
| Australia | 15:00 Sunday (Brisbane & Melbourne) | beIN Sports Australia |
| Balkan | 05:00 Sunday | Arena Sport |
| Canada | 23:00 Saturday | DAZN |
| Central & South America | 01:00 Sunday | ESPN LatAm |
| China | 12:00 Sunday (Beijing) | MIGU & YOUKU |
| France | 05:00 Sunday | beIN Sports |
| Germany | 05:00 Sunday | Sky Sports |
| India | 09:30 Sunday | Tennis Channel |
| Italy | 05:00 Sunday | Supertennis |
| New Zealand | 17:00 Sunday | TVNZ |
| North Africa | 05:00 Sunday | DAZN |
| South-East Asia | 12:00 Sunday (Manila & Singapore) | DAZN |
| Spain | 05:00 Sunday | Tennis Channel |
| United Kingdom & Ireland | 04:00 Sunday | Sky Sports |
| United States | 20:00 Saturday (Los Angeles) 23:00 (New York) | Tennis Channel |
Semi-Finals
The ASB Classic 2026 final is set, with top seed Elina Svitolina facing China’s Xinyu Wang after two contrasting semifinals in Auckland.
Svitolina leaned on experience to overcome 18-year-old Iva Jovic 7–6(5), 6–2, surviving a turbulent first set before pulling away decisively in the second.
After falling behind 0–3 early, the Ukrainian steadied herself, dominated the tiebreak, and then reeled off five straight games to secure her second Auckland final.
In the other semifinal, Wang outlasted Alexandra Eala 5–7, 7–5, 6–4 in a nearly three-hour thriller marked by wild momentum swings.
Eala came within a match point of reaching her third WTA final, but Wang recovered, surged ahead in the decider, and held firm under late pressure.
Svitolina and Wang will contest the title on January 11, with both using Auckland as a crucial launchpad toward the Australian Open.
Svitolina E. (Ukr) vs. Jovic I. (Usa) 7-6(5) 6-2 ↓
Svitolina vs Jovic – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Svitolina | Jovic |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.24 | 0.80 |
| Serve Rating | 246 | 203 |
| Aces | 3 | 0 |
| Double Faults | 3 | 2 |
| 1st Serve % | 64% (44/69) | 65% (42/65) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 64% (28/44) | 55% (23/42) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 48% (12/25) | 35% (8/23) |
| Break Points Saved | 50% (3/6) | 38% (3/8) |
| Service Games | 70% (7/10) | 50% (5/10) |
| Ace % | 4.3% | 0% |
| Double Fault % | 4.3% | 3.1% |
| Return Rating | 223 | 168 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 45% (19/42) | 36% (16/44) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 65% (15/23) | 52% (13/25) |
| Break Points Won | 63% (5/8) | 50% (3/6) |
| Return Games | 50% (5/10) | 30% (3/10) |
| Pressure Points | 57% (8/14) | 43% (6/14) |
| Service Points | 58% (40/69) | 48% (31/65) |
| Return Points | 52% (34/65) | 42% (29/69) |
| Total Points | 55% (74/134) | 45% (60/134) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Max Points In A Row | 8 | 4 |
| Service Games Won | 70% (7/10) | 50% (5/10) |
| Return Games Won | 50% (5/10) | 30% (3/10) |
| Total Games Won | 60% (12/20) | 40% (8/20) |
| Max Games In A Row | 5 | 3 |
| Match Duration | 1h 36m | |
Eala A. (Phl) vs. Wang Xin. (Chn) 7-5 5-7 4-6 ↓
Eala vs Wang – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Eala | Wang |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 0.99 | 1.02 |
| Serve Rating | 224 | 233 |
| Aces | 2 | 10 |
| Double Faults | 6 | 7 |
| 1st Serve % | 72% (85/118) | 73% (89/122) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 61% (52/85) | 65% (58/89) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 36% (12/33) | 27% (9/33) |
| Break Points Saved | 53% (8/15) | 68% (13/19) |
| Service Games | 59% (10/17) | 65% (11/17) |
| Ace % | 1.7% | 8.2% |
| Double Fault % | 5.1% | 5.7% |
| Return Rating | 175 | 191 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 35% (31/89) | 39% (33/85) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 73% (24/33) | 64% (21/33) |
| Break Points Won | 32% (6/19) | 47% (7/15) |
| Return Games | 35% (6/17) | 41% (7/17) |
| Pressure Points | 41% (14/34) | 59% (20/34) |
| Service Points | 54% (64/118) | 55% (67/122) |
| Return Points | 45% (55/122) | 46% (54/118) |
| Total Points | 50% (119/240) | 50% (121/240) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 1 |
| Max Points In A Row | 7 | 7 |
| Service Games Won | 59% (10/17) | 65% (11/17) |
| Return Games Won | 35% (6/17) | 41% (7/17) |
| Total Games Won | 47% (16/34) | 53% (18/34) |
| Max Games In A Row | 6 | 8 |
| Match Duration | 2h 43m | |
Quarter-finals
January 9
Svitolina E. (Ukr) v Kartal S. (Gbr) 6-4 6-7(2) 7-6(5) ↓
Thirty-four games and two tiebreaks crammed into two and a half hours felt borderline record-breaking. Elina Svitolina had to fight for every inch, because Sonay Kartal simply refused to let go. Even when Kartal trailed 3–4 in the first set, the pressure never dipped, forcing Svitolina to dig deep to survive a match played permanently on the edge.
The Auckland Open favorite is still in the hunt.
Svitolina vs Kartal – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Svitolina | Kartal |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| Serve Rating | – | – |
| Aces | 1 | 2 |
| Double Faults | 1 | 0 |
| 1st Serve % | 70% | 70% |
| Break Points Saved | 56% (5/9) | 44% (4/9) |
| Pressure Points | 56% (10/18) | 44% (8/18) |
| Service Points | 63% (66/105) | 64% (65/101) |
| Return Points | 36% (36/101) | 37% (39/105) |
| Total Points | 50% (102/206) | 50% (104/206) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 1 |
| Max Games In A Row | 4 | 4 |
| Match Duration | 2h 38m | |
Jovic I. (Usa) v Costoulas S. (Bel) 6-2 7-6(6) ↓
Jovic held the upper hand in a well-balanced match, converting 5 of 9 break points and winning 55% of total points. Despite serving fewer aces, she was more effective in return games and absorbed pressure better, winning 65% of key points. Costoulas fought hard, but Jovic’s consistency in rallies and better break-point efficiency made the difference in just under two hours.
Jovic vs Costoulas – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Jovic | Costoulas |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.21 | 0.83 |
| Serve Rating | – | – |
| Aces | 1 | 3 |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 |
| 1st Serve % | 0% (0/82) | 0% (0/66) |
| Break Points Saved | 73% (8/11) | 44% (4/9) |
| Ace % | 1.2% | 4.5% |
| Double Fault % | 2.4% | 3% |
| Return Rating | 56 | 27 |
| Break Points Won | 56% (5/9) | 27% (3/11) |
| Pressure Points | 65% (13/20) | 35% (7/20) |
| Service Points | 59% (48/82) | 50% (33/66) |
| Return Points | 50% (33/66) | 41% (34/82) |
| Total Points | 55% (81/148) | 45% (67/148) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Max Points In A Row | 9 | 6 |
| Max Games In A Row | 5 | 2 |
| Injury Timeouts | 0 | 0 |
| Match Duration | 1h 55m | |
Linette M. (Pol) v Eala A. (Phl) 3-6 2-6 ↓
Despite both players struggling to convert return pressure into early breaks, it was Alexandra Eala who consistently won the longer rallies and key exchanges. Her higher dominance ratio (1.29 to Linette’s 0.78) reflects a stronger grip on both baseline rhythm and return games.
Linette vs Eala – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Linette | Eala |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 0.78 | 1.29 |
| Serve Rating | – | – |
| Aces | 3 | 0 |
| Double Faults | 2 | 2 |
| 1st Serve % | 0% (0/62) | 0% (0/63) |
| Break Points Saved | 64% (9/14) | 71% (5/7) |
| Ace % | 4.8% | 0% |
| Double Fault % | 3.2% | 3.2% |
| Return Rating | 29 | 36 |
| Break Points Won | 29% (2/7) | 36% (5/14) |
| Pressure Points | 52% (11/21) | 48% (10/21) |
| Service Points | 47% (29/62) | 59% (37/63) |
| Return Points | 41% (26/63) | 53% (33/62) |
| Total Points | 44% (55/125) | 56% (70/125) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Max Points In A Row | 4 | 6 |
| Max Games In A Row | 2 | 5 |
| Injury timeouts | 0 | 0 |
| Match Duration | 1h37m | |
Wang Xin. (Chn) v Jones F. retired (Gbr) 6-4 4-3 ↓
Wang vs Jones – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Wang | Jones |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.31 | 0.76 |
| Aces | 4 | 3 |
| Double Faults | 1 | 0 |
| 1st Serve % | 0% (0/56) | 0% (0/71) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | – | – |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | – | – |
| Break Points Saved | 82% (9/11) | 64% (7/11) |
| Service Games | – | – |
| Ace % | 7.1% | 4.2% |
| Double Fault % | 1.8% | 0% |
| Return Rating | 36 | 18 |
| 1st Return Points Won | – | – |
| 2nd Return Points Won | – | – |
| Break Points Won | 36% (4/11) | 18% (2/11) |
| Return Games | – | – |
| Pressure Points | 59% (13/22) | 41% (9/22) |
| Service Points | 63% (35/56) | 51% (36/71) |
| Return Points | 49% (35/71) | 38% (21/56) |
| Total Points | 55% (70/127) | 45% (57/127) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Max Points In A Row | 6 | 5 |
| Total Games | – | – |
| Max Games In A Row | 3 | 2 |
| Match Duration | 1h 39m | |
Round of 16
The ASB Classic in Auckland is moving into its decisive stretch, with the quarterfinal field now locked in.
Top seed Elina Svitolina stayed on course with a composed win over Katie Boulter, shaking off early pressure to assert her control. For Boulter, it was another frustrating setback in a period where results continue to lag behind ambition.
Svitolina now meets Sonay Kartal, who swept past Ella Seidel and looks eager to reassert herself after an uneven second half of last season.
Alexandra Eala, meanwhile, sent a clear message by dismantling Petra Marcinko, underlining her growing belief and title credentials. She faces Magda Linette next, after the former Australian Open semifinalist battled through a three-set test to keep her Auckland run alive.
Belgium’s surprise package, Sofia Costoulas, keeps rolling, dispatching Spain’s Quevedo with a bagel.
Svitolina E. (Ukr) – Boulter K. (Gbr) 7-5 6-4 ↓
Svitolina vs Boulter – Full Match Stats, ASB Classic WTA, January 8
| Statistic | Svitolina | Boulter |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.15 | 0.87 |
| Serve Rating | 237 | 201 |
| Aces | 4 | 2 |
| Double Faults | 4 | 4 |
| 1st Serve % | 57% (46/80) | 69% (56/81) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 59% (27/46) | 50% (28/56) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 56% (19/34) | 39% (11/28) |
| Break Points Saved | 50% (4/8) | 45% (5/11) |
| Service Games | 64% (7/11) | 45% (5/11) |
| Ace % | 5% | 2.5% |
| Double Fault % | 5% | 4.9% |
| Return Rating | 221 | 171 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 50% (28/56) | 41% (19/46) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 61% (17/28) | 44% (15/34) |
| Break Points Won | 55% (6/11) | 50% (4/8) |
| Return Games | 55% (6/11) | 36% (4/11) |
| Pressure Points | 53% (10/19) | 47% (9/19) |
| Service Points | 55% (44/80) | 48% (39/81) |
| Return Points | 52% (42/81) | 45% (36/80) |
| Total Points | 53% (86/161) | 47% (75/161) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 2 |
| Max Points In A Row | 6 | 6 |
| Total Games | 59% (13/22) | 41% (9/22) |
| Max Games In A Row | 5 | 3 |
| Match Duration | 2h 03m | |
Seidel E. (Ger) – Kartal S. (Gbr) 3-6 1-6
Jovic I. (Usa) v Bejlek S. (Cze) 7-6(3) 6-4 ↓
Jovic vs Bejlek – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Jovic | Bejlek |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.24 | 0.80 |
| Serve Rating | 233 | 187 |
| Aces | 2 | 1 |
| Double Faults | 2 | 3 |
| 1st Serve % | 71% (47/66) | 57% (43/75) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 60% (28/47) | 56% (24/43) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 47% (9/19) | 31% (10/32) |
| Break Points Saved | 50% (5/10) | 40% (4/10) |
| Service Games | 55% (6/11) | 45% (5/11) |
| Ace % | 3% | 1.3% |
| Double Fault % | 3% | 4% |
| Return Rating | 228 | 188 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 44% (19/43) | 40% (19/47) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 69% (22/32) | 53% (10/19) |
| Break Points Won | 60% (6/10) | 50% (5/10) |
| Return Games | 55% (6/11) | 45% (5/11) |
| Pressure Points | 55% (11/20) | 45% (9/20) |
| Service Points | 56% (37/66) | 45% (34/75) |
| Return Points | 55% (41/75) | 44% (29/66) |
| Total Points | 55% (78/141) | 45% (63/141) |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Max Points In A Row | 9 | 6 |
| Total Games | 55% (12/22) | 45% (10/22) |
| Max Games In A Row | 3 | 3 |
| Match Duration | 1h 49m | |
Costoulas S. (Bel) – Quevedo K. (Esp) 6-2 6-0
Linette M. (Pol) – Cocciaretto E. (Ita) 7-5 2-6 6-3
Marcinko P. (Cro) – Eala A. (Phl) 0-6 2-6 ↓
Marcinko vs Eala – Full Match Stats
| Statistic | Marcinko | Eala |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 0.54 | 1.85 |
| Serve Rating | 129 | 268 |
| Aces | 1 | 1 |
| Double Faults | 3 | 2 |
| 1st Serve % | 62% (24/39) | 63% (30/48) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 33% (8/24) | 70% (21/30) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 22% (4/18) | 50% (9/18) |
| Break Points Saved | 0% (0/6) | 83% (5/6) |
| Service Games | 14% (1/7) | 86% (6/7) |
| Ace % | 2.6% | 2.1% |
| Double Fault % | 7.7% | 4.2% |
| Return Rating | 111 | 331 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 30% (9/30) | 67% (16/24) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 50% (9/18) | 78% (14/18) |
| Break Points Won | 17% (1/6) | 100% (6/6) |
| Return Games | 14% (1/7) | 86% (6/7) |
| Pressure Points | 8% (1/12) | 92% (11/12) |
| Service Points | 31% (12/39) | 63% (30/48) |
| Return Points | 38% (18/48) | 69% (27/39) |
| Total Points | 34% (30/87) | 66% (57/87) |
| Max Points In A Row | 6 | 7 |
| Match Points Saved | 0 | 0 |
| Total Games | 14% (2/14) | 86% (12/14) |
| Max Games In A Row | 2 | 7 |
| Match Duration | 1h 04m | |
Wang Xin. (Chn) – Zarazua R. (Mex) 7-5 6-4
Kraus S. (Aut) – Jones F. (Gbr) 6-1 4-6 1-6
Round of 32
The Americans arrived in a noisy clump and left in near silence — five US women, five exits, and not much consolation beyond a few spirited flurries that fizzled when the set tightened.
The toughest one to swallow was Emma Navarro, who had her hands on it and still watched Francesca Jones wriggle free. Navarro did the hard work by dragging the match into a decider, then found herself back in the familiar WTA purgatory: one loose service game, one door left ajar, and a British counterpuncher strolling through it.
Sloane Stephens produced one of those trademark stretches where the ball looks glued to the baseline — and then let it slip again. Renata Zarazua took her nerve and her chances, sending Stephens out with the kind of persistence that doesn’t care for reputation.
If Caty McNally wanted a reminder of how quickly momentum can turn, Wang Xinyu delivered it. McNally hit first, won the opener, and then the match tilted: a three-set swing that felt like it was decided in the last two return games.
Alycia Parks never quite found the rhythm to bully her way through Elisabetta Cocciaretto, losing 2-6 5-7 — close enough to tease, not clean enough to cash in.
And Whitney Osuigwe had a real pulse in the middle set, only for Sofia Costoulas to slam the brakes and run away with it.
So the round moves on without a single American survivor — plenty of fight, a couple of opportunities, and the same old moral: in early-season tennis, “nearly” is just another form of gone.
Note: There were no players with a BYE in Round One of the main draw.
January 5-6
Svitolina E. (Ukr) – Gracheva V. (Fra) 6-3 6-1
Boulter K. (Gbr) – Starodubtseva Y. (Ukr) 6-3 6-3
Barry M. (Nzl) – Seidel E. (Ger) 2-6 1-6
Kartal S. (Gbr) – Tjen J. (Ina) 6-1 6-7 6-3
Jovic I. (Usa) – Knutson G. (Cze) 4-6 6-1 6-0
Udvardy P. (Hun) – Bejlek S. (Cze) 5-7 1-6
Costoulas S. (Bel) – Osuigwe W. (Usa) 6-4 3-6 6-1
Quevedo K. (Esp) – Stearns P. (Usa) 6-2 7-5
Linette M. (Pol) – Williams V. (Usa) 6-4 4-6 6-2
Parks A. (Usa) – Cocciaretto E. (Ita) 2-6 5-7
Osorio C. (Col) – Marcinko P. (Cro) 4-6 6-0 6-7(2)
Vekic D. (Cro) – Eala A. (Phl) 6-4 4-6 4-6
Wang Xin. (Chn) – McNally C. (Usa) 2-6 6-3 7-5
Stephens S. (Usa) – Zarazua R. (Mex) 5-7 6-4 2-6
Kraus S. (Aut) – Grabher J. (Aut) 6-3 6-3
Jones F. (Gbr) – Navarro E. (Usa) 7-5 2-6 6-4
Qualifying Draw Results
Qualifying – Final Round
The final round of qualifying in Auckland mixed authority with attrition as the last main-draw places were decided. Some matches barely lingered, others dragged deep into nerve and nuance, exactly the split you expect when opportunity sharpens the edges.
Yuliia Starodubtseva was the most emphatic, rolling through her match in straight sets, while Gabriela Knutson and Sinja Kraus also came through without dropping one. Elsewhere, resilience mattered more than rhythm. Whitney Osuigwe and Kaitlin Quevedo both navigated full-distance battles, while Belgium’s talent Sofia Costoulas edged through a match that never quite settled.
Six tickets stamped, and Auckland’s main draw duly completed.
Starodubtseva Y. (Ukr) – Tagger L. (Aut) 6-1 6-1
Osuigwe W. (Usa) – Semenistaja D. (Lat) 6-2 2-6 7-5
Quevedo K. (Esp) – Ku Y. (Kor) 1-6 6-4 6-1
Erjavec V. (Slo) – Costoulas S. (Bel) 3-6 6-4 3-6
Knutson G. (Cze) – Chwalinska M. (Pol) 6-3 6-2
Kraus S. (Aut) – Mladenovic K. (Fra) 7-5 7-5
Qualifying – Semi-finals
Quevedo K. (Esp) – Monnet C. (Fra) 6-2 6-7 6-3
Ku Y. (Kor) – Charaeva A. (Wrl) 6-3 6-2
Semenistaja D. (Lat) – Brace C. (Can) 6-3 6-3
Chirico L. (Usa) – Osuigwe W. (Usa) 6-7 3-6
Starodubtseva Y. (Ukr) – Ponchet J. (Fra) 6-3 6-3
Pigossi L. (Bra) – Tagger L. (Aut) 6-4 4-6 1-6
Erjavec V. (Slo) – Das A. (Nzl) 6-3 6-4
Guo H. (Chn) – Chwalinska M. (Pol) 4-6 0-6
Romero Gormaz L. (Esp) – Knutson G. (Cze) 3-6 4-6
Tse E. (Nzl) – Costoulas S. (Bel) 0-6 1-6
Kraus S. (Aut) – Sevastova A. (Lat) 6-4 6-7 6-3
Mladenovic K. (Fra) – Friedsam A-L. (Ger) 7-6 6-4
Related WTA Articles You Might Enjoy
Osaka Swerves Auckland for the United Cup — and Leaves a Hole the Size of a Grand Slam Champion
Brisbane International 2026 Results: Full Match Scores, Daily Highlights and Key Stats (WTA 250)