“I called my psychologist”: Aryna Sabalenka addresses late-match breakdowns after Roland Garros defeat

Aryna Sabalenka has detailed the immediate response to her Roland Garros quarter-final defeat, focusing on a return to psychological support after losing a match she had fully controlled for long stretches. The world No. 1 exited in Paris after a 3–6, 7–5, 6–0 defeat to Diana Shnaider.

Sabalenka led 6–3, 4–1 with a double break and later served for the match at 5–3 in the second set. From that point, she did not win another game in the match, as Shnaider produced a 10-game run to complete the turnaround.

The defeat was particularly significant because it did not stem from sustained tactical inferiority, but from a collapse during closing phases where Sabalenka had multiple control points. This type of loss has been a recurring feature in her Grand Slam profile outside hard courts.

Speaking in Berlin during a conversation with Bounces, Sabalenka described the immediate post-match process, including team discussions and a return to psychological work.

Sabalenka confirmed she re-engaged with a psychologist she had previously worked with after the defeat, using structured support to process the specific sequence of events in the match rather than general performance concerns.

“I called my psychologist with whom I used to work,” she said, placing emphasis on the need to revisit established coping frameworks after a match where control disappeared from a winning position.

The key issue in this match was not shot production, but execution at two critical thresholds: serving at 5–3 for the match, and stabilising after losing the second set. Both phases are traditionally where top players reduce risk and increase margin, but Sabalenka’s level dropped sharply instead.

“We had a lot of chats with the team. I called my psychologist with whom I used to work. It just felt like I needed to talk through everything I’ve been going through in the last I-don’t-know-how-many years.”

The reference to “years” is tied directly to repeated match-state failures rather than general career reflection. “I feel like I need to figure out what’s happening in those matches,” she added, focusing specifically on in-match transitions after establishing leads.

“It was really helpful. I kind of changed a lot of things, and I’m trying a lot of new things right now. I feel like I need to figure out what’s happening, sometimes, in those matches to [be able to] move on and to avoid these situations happening.”

The “situations” she refers to are structurally consistent: double-break leads and service games to close sets where first-serve efficiency and rally tolerance drop simultaneously. Against Shnaider, this was visible from 4–1 in the second set onward, where error patterns increased under low-pressure shots.

Sabalenka described a targeted review of matches where she had control but did not convert it into victory.

The Shnaider match is the clearest example in her recent Grand Slam history due to the scale of the swing. “I’ve tried to dig deeper in my thoughts to find what’s actually happening in those matches,” she said, focusing on identifying specific decision points rather than general performance trends.

“I was going through all of the matches that I felt like—not like I should have won—but [where] I felt I had more opportunities and I missed them.”

In the Roland Garros context, those missed opportunities are concentrated in identifiable game states: the 5–3 service game for the match and the immediate response after losing the second set. In both cases, Sabalenka’s first-serve percentage dropped and rally tolerance shortened, allowing Shnaider to extend points and shift baseline control.

Rather than abstract reflection, this phase is effectively a diagnostic of late-match behaviour under scoreboard pressure. “I’m just trying to kind of dig deep in my brain—which is probably not a good idea,” she added. “But let’s see where it’s going to lead me.”

Sabalenka confirmed she has introduced multiple changes following the defeat, extending beyond psychological work into preparation routines. “I changed a lot of things,” she said, summarising the scope of adjustments currently being tested during competition phases. “I feel like I need to figure out what’s happening,”

Despite the Roland Garros loss, her season remains strong at 31–4 with three titles, indicating that the issue is not structural across all matches, but concentrated in specific high-leverage situations.

The pattern remains consistent: when Sabalenka leads comfortably in Grand Slam matches outside hard courts, her error rate increases disproportionately in service games that decide sets. Against Shnaider, this was most visible from 5–3 in the second set, where she failed to generate a single game point after losing momentum.

Sabalenka will open her Berlin campaign against Ekaterina Alexandrova, a player who previously reached the Wimbledon semi-finals in 2025 before losing to Marketa Vondrousova. The world No. 1 herself reached the Berlin semi-finals in 2025, where she was beaten by Vondrousova, and continues to chase her first career title on grass, a surface where she has consistently produced deep runs but has not yet converted any of them into a championship.