Anhelina Kalinina had no business making this a contest on paper, arriving 23 spots below Emma Navarro in the rankings and with a single ace to her name after two sets. For the better part of an hour, though, the Ukrainian played like the seeding sheet was upside down. She hit deeper, she found more first serves, and she made Navarro look like the player chasing the match rather than controlling it.
Navarro eventually pulled the match back onto her terms. She won 3-6, 6-4, 6-2 in the round of 64 at the Cincinnati Open, needing a set and a half to solve a problem Kalinina had set for her early. It was not a rout. It was a match Navarro had to go and take.
A few numbers frame what followed: 15 aces against two, a near-even winner count, and a final scoreline that flattered Emma Navarro more than the underlying tennis did. Kalinina made her fight for every game of it.
Different roads to Cincinnati
Navarro is playing this event on ground her own family effectively owns. Beemok Sports & Entertainment, run by her father Ben Navarro, has controlled the Cincinnati Open since 2022, alongside the Charleston Open.
She turned pro after winning the 2021 NCAA singles title at the University of Virginia, part of a tennis-mad household that includes her sister Meggie, still playing collegiately at UVA.
Navarro has pushed back on being defined by the family’s business ties to the sport, telling Tatler that her upbringing meant early Saturday practices and a deliberate emphasis on toughness rather than being handed things.
Kalinina’s path looked nothing like it. Born in Nova Kakhovka, in Ukraine’s Kherson region, she picked up a racket at five, encouraged by her grandmother, with her mother Halina working as her first coach before the family relocated to Kyiv in 2008.
Also, her career peak came at the 2023 Italian Open, where she reached the final as the lowest-ranked woman (No.47) to do so at that event since 1985.
Kalinina Closes the Opener With a Double Break
The early exchanges were tight. Navarro held to open, Kalinina leveled from 0-40 down, and the pair traded serve through 3-3 with neither able to find daylight. Then the set tipped. Serving at 3-3, Navarro dropped her own game to fall behind 3-4, and two games later she was broken again to hand Kalinina the set 6-3.
That closing sequence, three straight games without Navarro winning one, was the difference. Kalinina’s ball-striking, flatter and more penetrating than Navarro’s, had started to dictate the rallies, and her opponent had no answer on return.
It was a rough opening act for the higher seed. But it also set up exactly the kind of afternoon Navarro has built a reputation on: finding a way to reset after a bad set rather than letting one carry into the next.
Navarro vs Kalinina – Key Set 1 Stats
- Kalinina won 83% of pressure points (5/6) compared with Navarro’s 17% (1/6).
- Kalinina won her service games at a perfect 100% (4/4), while Navarro fell to 60% (3/5).
- Kalinina didn’t commit a single unforced error (0) compared with Navarro’s 4, and won 60% of total points (30/50).
Full Set 1 Stats
| Navarro | Statistic | Kalinina |
|---|---|---|
| Set 1 Duration: 0h37m | ||
| 0.49 | Dominance Ratio | 2.04 |
| 7 | Winners | 9 |
| 4 | Unforced Errors | 0 |
| 220 | Serve Rating | 320 |
| 3 | Aces | 1 |
| 2 | Double Faults | 0 |
| 46% (13/28) | 1st Serve % | 68% (15/22) |
| 69% (9/13) | 1st Serve Points Won | 80% (12/15) |
| 44% (7/16) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 71% (5/7) |
| 33% (1/3) | Break Points Saved | 100% (2/2) |
| 49 | Return Rating | 194 |
| 20% (3/15) | 1st Return Points Won | 31% (4/13) |
| 29% (2/7) | 2nd Return Points Won | 56% (9/16) |
| 0/2 | Break Points Won | 2/3 |
| 20 | Total Points Won | 30 |
Navarro Breaks First, Survives a Wobble, Levels the Match
Navarro answered immediately. She broke Kalinina’s opening service game of the second set, held to 2-0, and pushed the lead to 3-1 before Kalinina dug back in. A break in the sixth game brought it level at 3-3, and from there the set tightened into a genuine fight, both players holding through to 4-4.
Navarro then found the break that mattered. She broke for 5-4 and served out the set 6-4, converting on her second look at a set point to force a decider.
It was a set with real texture to it, not a straightforward hold-fest. Kalinina had a route back into the match at 3-3 and again at 4-4. Navarro shut the door both times.
Key Set 2 Stats
- Navarro won 91% of pressure points (10/11) compared with Kalinina’s 9% (1/11).
- Navarro converted 100% of her break points (2/2), while Kalinina managed just 25% (1/4).
- Navarro won 52% of total points (34/66) despite committing more double faults, 4 to Kalinina’s 3.
Full Set 2 Stats
| Navarro | Statistic | Kalinina |
|---|---|---|
| Set 2 Duration: 0h53m | ||
| 1.02 | Dominance Ratio | 0.98 |
| 10 | Winners | 8 |
| 9 | Unforced Errors | 4 |
| 244 | Serve Rating | 241 |
| 4 | Aces | 1 |
| 4 | Double Faults | 3 |
| 68% (25/37) | 1st Serve % | 66% (19/29) |
| 76% (19/25) | 1st Serve Points Won | 74% (14/19) |
| 20% (3/15) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 43% (6/14) |
| 75% (3/4) | Break Points Saved | 0% (0/2) |
| 223 | Return Rating | 149 |
| 26% (5/19) | 1st Return Points Won | 24% (6/25) |
| 57% (8/14) | 2nd Return Points Won | 80% (12/15) |
| 2/2 | Break Points Won | 1/4 |
| 34 | Total Points Won | 32 |
Two More Breaks Put the Decider Away Quickly
If the first two sets had been contested, the third was not. Navarro broke in the opening game, held for 2-0, and by 4-2 had put real distance between herself and an opponent who was suddenly out of answers. A third break, in the seventh game, handed her the chance to serve for the match, and she took it, closing out 6-2 on her first match point.
The version of Navarro who had lost three of four service games in the first set won every one of her own service games she played in the third. That shift, more than any single shot, decided the match.
Key Set 3 Stats
- Navarro hit 8 aces to Kalinina’s 2, a huge gap in serving power.
- Navarro won 78% of pressure points (7/9) compared with Kalinina’s 22% (2/9).
- Navarro won her service games at a perfect 100% (4/4), while Kalinina fell to 50% (2/4).
Full Set 3 Stats
| Navarro | Statistic | Kalinina |
|---|---|---|
| Set 3 Duration: 0h48m | ||
| 1.30 | Dominance Ratio | 0.77 |
| 11 | Winners | 9 |
| 2 | Unforced Errors | 3 |
| 303 | Serve Rating | 232 |
| 8 | Aces | 2 |
| 2 | Double Faults | 2 |
| 85% (23/27) | 1st Serve % | 85% (22/26) |
| 70% (16/23) | 1st Serve Points Won | 64% (14/22) |
| 42% (5/12) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 33% (3/9) |
| 100% (2/2) | Break Points Saved | 33% (1/3) |
| 220 | Return Rating | 88 |
| 36% (8/22) | 1st Return Points Won | 30% (7/23) |
| 67% (6/9) | 2nd Return Points Won | 58% (7/12) |
| 2/3 | Break Points Won | 0/2 |
| 31 | Total Points Won | 25 |
The Numbers Complicate the Story
The scoreline says Navarro won comfortably in the end.
The stat sheet says something closer to a coin flip.
The two players finished separated by a single point overall, 85 to 84, and Kalinina actually edged Navarro in dominance ratio, 1.03 to 0.97, a measure that typically tracks the winner far more reliably than it did here.
What actually separated them was cleaner hitting and a big serve at the biggest moments.
Navarro’s 15 aces dwarfed Kalinina’s two, and she won 82 percent of her first-serve points to Kalinina’s 70.
Her return game showed up when it counted too: she converted 4 of 7 break points and saved 6 of 9, both markedly better than Kalinina’s numbers in the same categories.
On pressure points specifically, Navarro won 10 of 16 to Kalinina’s six.
Unforced errors told the rest of it. Navarro made 15 to Kalinina’s seven, evidence of exactly how she lost that first set. She trailed 3-3. She was broken twice in a row. Moreover, she still found a way through two sets later.
Navarro’s Ranking Held, Barely
Kalinina made Navarro fight for a result the seeding sheet said should have been straightforward.
In the end, the gap between them showed up exactly where it was supposed to: on the biggest points.
Now, Navarro moves into the round of 32 in Cincinnati, where she will face Jessica Pegula.