> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://courtshark.ai/blog/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Bejlek vs Parks: Ningbo model and market split
- URL: https://courtshark.ai/blog/bejlek-parks-ningbo-model-market-split/
- Published: 2026-10-19T23:02:14.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-19T23:02:14.000Z
- Description: Bejlek's hard-court history supports favoritism against Parks in Ningbo, but uneven recent results leave room for a more cautious forecast.
- Author: Court Shark Desk
- Tags: match-preview, Sara Bejlek, Alycia Parks, Ningbo 2026, Hard, Head-to-head

In this analysis

1. [Key takeaway](#key-takeaway)
2. [The disagreement is about the size of Bejlek's edge](#s-the-disagreement-is-about-the-size-of-bejlek-s-edge)
3. [The matchup history strengthens Bejlek's case](#s-the-matchup-history-strengthens-bejlek-s-case)
4. [Return games are the clearest test](#s-return-games-are-the-clearest-test)
5. [Explore this matchup](#explore)
6. [Methodology and sources](#methodology)

Key takeaway

Bejlek's matchup history and stronger return record support favoritism. Her uneven recent results make the case for overwhelming confidence less convincing.

63% is Court Shark's model probability for Sara Bejlek against Alycia Parks in Ningbo. Their head-to-head and broader hard-court records support favoritism, but Bejlek's uneven recent form supports more caution than the market shows.

## The disagreement is about the size of Bejlek's edge

The market consensus has [Sara Bejlek](https://courtshark.ai/players/sara-bejlek-10239383) at 83% against [Alycia Parks](https://courtshark.ai/players/alycia-parks-10219917), up from an opening 82%. Both readings favor Bejlek. The disagreement concerns how much room remains for an upset, rather than which player should be the pick for this match in Ningbo. Prices establish the market's expectation, but they do not explain its reasons.

Recent results offer a reason for caution alongside a clear argument for favoring Bejlek: she is 5-5 over her latest matches, while Parks is 3-7\. Their recent hard-court records are identical to those overall records, so changing the lens to this surface does not strengthen the immediate form case. Bejlek has lost her last two matches. Parks also arrives after a defeat, leaving neither player with a winning run to defend. My reading is that this supports Bejlek as the favorite without making recent form alone a persuasive case for such a strong market preference.

### Model and market on Sara Bejlek

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Sara Bejlek's chance as the market consensus priced it from the opening line, next to the Court Shark model.

__Sara Bejlek's chance to win__
| Reading           | Sara Bejlek | Alycia Parks |
| ----------------- | ----------- | ------------ |
| Opening consensus | 82%         | 18%          |
| Latest consensus  | 83%         | 17%          |
| Court Shark model | 63%         | 37%          |

Source: Court Shark model and pre-match market consensus.View data table

## The matchup history strengthens Bejlek's case

Bejlek leads the head-to-head 3-0, with every meeting played on hard courts. That matters here. Unlike a record built on another surface, these results come from the same surface as the upcoming match, making them directly relevant to the comparison. The limitation is the small matchup sample: repeated success supports her case, but does not establish that Parks cannot reverse it.

Their latest meeting in Guadalajara ended 6-4 6-3 in Bejlek's favor. That result adds a recent example of her success against Parks, rather than leaving the argument dependent entirely on meetings further in the past.

The broader hard-court records point in the same direction, with Bejlek at 21-11 and Parks at 13-16 in their available statistical samples. That provides support beyond their meetings with each other. My interpretation is that Bejlek's advantage looks more convincing across this broader stretch than it does through recent results alone. She has both beaten this opponent repeatedly and won more consistently on the surface, giving her a stronger case than the immediate form comparison alone provides.

### Head-to-head by surface

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Sara Bejlek and Alycia Parks have met 3 times. Sara Bejlek leads 3-0.

__Head-to-head record, Sara Bejlek first__
| Surface      | Sara Bejlek | Alycia Parks |
| ------------ | ----------- | ------------ |
| All surfaces | 3           | 0            |
| Hard         | 3           | 0            |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

## Return games are the clearest test

Both players held serve at 66% in the available hard-court samples. Serving offers no separation here. That makes it harder to argue from these averages that Bejlek should control the match simply by protecting her own service games more reliably than Parks. It also directs attention toward what happens when each player returns.

Bejlek broke serve in 42% of return games, compared with 28% for Parks. That difference gives a concrete explanation for how the favorite could create an advantage despite their matching hold rates, without assuming every service game will follow the averages. My reading is that Bejlek's return is the clearest strength Parks must contain. These are separate samples against different opponents, rather than a direct measure of how their serves and returns interact.

The useful test is whether Bejlek wins more return games than Parks, rather than whether either player appears comfortable on serve. If Parks matches or exceeds Bejlek's success in return games, that would challenge the clearest statistical argument for the favorite.

## Explore this matchup

Compare both players side by side: recent results, surfaces, serve and return.

### Player comparison

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Each measure on the same scale: recent wins, wins on this surface, head-to-head wins and the model's chance.

__Player comparison__
| Measure               | Sara Bejlek | Alycia Parks |
| --------------------- | ----------- | ------------ |
| Wins, last 10 matches | 50% (5-5)   | 30% (3-7)    |
| Wins, last 10 on hard | 50% (5-5)   | 30% (3-7)    |
| Head-to-head wins     | 100% (3-0)  | 0% (0-3)     |
| Model win probability | 63%         | 37%          |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Recent form

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Each player's most recent completed matches, up to 10, oldest on the left.

__Recent results by player, oldest first__
| Player       | Date         | Result | Opponent              | Score          | Event       |
| ------------ | ------------ | ------ | --------------------- | -------------- | ----------- |
| Sara Bejlek  | Aug 18, 2026 | W      | Ekaterina Alexandrova | 4-6 6-1 6-2    | Cincinnati  |
| Sara Bejlek  | Aug 20, 2026 | W      | Aryna Sabalenka       | 7-6(7) 6-4     | Cincinnati  |
| Sara Bejlek  | Aug 21, 2026 | W      | Madison Keys          | 3-6 6-4 7-6(5) | Cincinnati  |
| Sara Bejlek  | Aug 22, 2026 | L      | Cori Gauff            | 4-6 1-6        | Cincinnati  |
| Sara Bejlek  | Aug 31, 2026 | L      | Cristina Bucsa        | 5-7 6-4 1-6    | US Open     |
| Sara Bejlek  | Sep 15, 2026 | W      | Alycia Parks          | 6-4 6-3        | Guadalajara |
| Sara Bejlek  | Sep 17, 2026 | L      | Cristina Bucsa        | 0-6 4-6        | Guadalajara |
| Sara Bejlek  | Oct 2, 2026  | W      | Maddison Inglis       | 6-3 7-5        | Beijing     |
| Sara Bejlek  | Oct 4, 2026  | L      | Naomi Osaka           | 6-7(4) 4-6     | Beijing     |
| Sara Bejlek  | Oct 12, 2026 | L      | Jasmine Paolini       | 3-6 4-6        | WTA Wuhan   |
| Alycia Parks | Aug 27, 2026 | L      | Ann Li                | 2-6 3-6        | Monterrey   |
| Alycia Parks | Aug 30, 2026 | L      | Taylah Preston        | 3-6 3-6        | US Open     |
| Alycia Parks | Sep 13, 2026 | W      | Varvara Lepchenko     | 6-3 1-6 7-5    | Guadalajara |
| Alycia Parks | Sep 15, 2026 | L      | Sara Bejlek           | 4-6 3-6        | Guadalajara |
| Alycia Parks | Sep 22, 2026 | W      | Mei Yamaguchi         | 6-4 6-3        | Singapore   |
| Alycia Parks | Sep 23, 2026 | L      | Leylah Fernandez      | 4-6 3-6        | Singapore   |
| Alycia Parks | Oct 1, 2026  | L      | Lin Zhu               | 4-6 2-6        | Beijing     |
| Alycia Parks | Oct 10, 2026 | L      | Aoi Ito               | 4-6 1-6        | WTA Wuhan   |
| Alycia Parks | Oct 17, 2026 | W      | Jeline Vandromme      | 4-6 4-4 RET    | WTA Ningbo  |
| Alycia Parks | Oct 18, 2026 | L      | Yulia Putintseva      | 2-6 2-6        | WTA Ningbo  |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Win rate by surface

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Share of matches won on each surface across each player's last 50 matches with full statistics.

__Win rate by surface__
| Surface | Sara Bejlek         | Alycia Parks |
| ------- | ------------------- | ------------ |
| Hard    | 66% (21-11)         | 45% (13-16)  |
| Clay    | 64% (9-5)           | 56% (9-7)    |
| Grass   | Too few matches (4) | 20% (1-4)    |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Serve and return on hard courts

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

How often each player held serve and broke serve on hard over their last 50 matches with full statistics, against the tour's all-years average on the surface.

__Hold and break rates on hard__
| Measure             | Sara Bejlek | Alycia Parks | Tour average, all years |
| ------------------- | ----------- | ------------ | ----------------------- |
| Service games held  | 66%         | 66%          | 63%                     |
| Return games broken | 42%         | 28%          | 37%                     |
| Matches in sample   | 32          | 29           |                         |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Model win probability

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

The Court Shark model's chance for each player to win this match.

__Model win probability by player__
| Player       | Win probability | Recent form (last 10) |
| ------------ | --------------- | --------------------- |
| Sara Bejlek  | 63%             | 5-5                   |
| Alycia Parks | 37%             | 3-7                   |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Ways to win

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Every way the match can finish. The likeliest single result is Sara Bejlek in straight sets (44%).

__Chance of each final set score__
| Result                | Chance |
| --------------------- | ------ |
| Sara Bejlek wins 2-0  | 44%    |
| Sara Bejlek wins 2-1  | 19%    |
| Alycia Parks wins 2-1 | 15%    |
| Alycia Parks wins 2-0 | 22%    |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### How long it could go

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

A 60% chance the match lasts 17 to 27 games; 21 is the middle of the range.

__Chance of each total number of games in the match__
| Total games | Chance |
| ----------- | ------ |
| 12          | 0.3%   |
| 13          | 1.2%   |
| 14          | 2.9%   |
| 15          | 5.2%   |
| 16          | 7.5%   |
| 17          | 8.9%   |
| 18          | 8.8%   |
| 19          | 8.0%   |
| 20          | 7.0%   |
| 21          | 5.1%   |
| 22          | 5.9%   |
| 23          | 3.7%   |
| 24          | 2.0%   |
| 25          | 3.6%   |
| 26          | 3.8%   |
| 27          | 3.5%   |
| 28          | 3.8%   |
| 29          | 3.9%   |
| 30          | 3.6%   |
| 31          | 3.3%   |
| 32          | 2.7%   |
| 33          | 1.8%   |
| 34          | 1.3%   |
| 35          | 1.2%   |
| 36          | 0.5%   |
| 38          | 0.2%   |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

### Return games won: where they stand

Article snapshot, Oct 19, 2026 · Not live

Each dot is one of the WTA top 100 with enough matches in the last 52 weeks. Sara Bejlek is 11th of 65; Alycia Parks ranks ahead of 3 of 65.

__Return games won, last 52 weeks, against the WTA top 100__
| Player                   | Return games won | Place            |
| ------------------------ | ---------------- | ---------------- |
| Sara Bejlek              | 38.7%            | 11th of 65       |
| Alycia Parks             | 28.4%            | Ahead of 3 of 65 |
| Field median             | 35.0%            |                  |
| Field best (Iga Swiatek) | 44.1%            | 1st              |

Source: Court Shark model and match data.View data table

[Explore this matchup](https://courtshark.ai/h2h?p1=10219917&p2=10239383)

Court Shark win probabilities are statistical estimates, not advice. No outcome is guaranteed.

Our forecast

Court Shark's model

Sara Bejlek 63% to win

Match shape

Sara Bejlek in straight sets: 44%

Deciding set: 34%

Total games: median 21, middle half 17 to 27

AI analyst

Picks Sara Bejlek (agrees with the model)

Its case: Sara Bejlek has won all 3 previous meetings with Alycia Parks on hard courts, including 6-4 6-3 in Guadalajara last month, and her recent hard-court run is 5-5 versus Parks’s 3-7.

The risk it names: The main danger is Parks’s much bigger hard-court serve, with a 69.5% first-serve-points-won rate and 10.2% ace rate.

Estimates recorded before play, not certainties.

Keep exploring

[Follow this match on Court Shark](https://courtshark.ai/matches?file=bdl%5F18726814)[Create a free account to keep it](https://courtshark.ai/register?redirect=%2Fmatches%3Ffile%3Dbdl%5F18726814)

Match context

Players

Sara Bejlek  
vs Alycia Parks

Event

Ningbo

Surface

Hard

Round

Round of 32

Date

Tuesday, October 20

Article snapshot · Not live

Continue your research

Compare form, explore surfaces and follow live match context.

[Explore Premium](https://courtshark.ai/register?redirect=/start-premium)[See what's included](https://courtshark.ai/premium)
- Advanced filters and splits
- Save your research
- Live context and updates

Related on Court Shark

- [How our match model works](https://courtshark.ai/blog/methodology/)
- [Open the full head-to-head](https://courtshark.ai/h2h?p1=10219917&p2=10239383)
- [Our editorial standards](https://courtshark.ai/blog/editorial-standards/)
- [About the desk](https://courtshark.ai/blog/about-the-desk/)

## Methodology and sources

How we build model estimates and where our information comes from.

Model estimates and observed results

The win probabilities come from the Court Shark match model, trained on completed ATP and WTA matches. A probability says how often a player in this position wins, not that one result will happen. The model's number for a match is recorded before play and never changed afterwards, so it can be checked against the result.

Sources and citations

Results, scores, rankings and serve statistics come from the Court Shark match database. The market consensus is the pre-match price for each player converted to a probability. Figures in this article are a snapshot taken when it was written.

Limitations

Serve and return rates count only matches with full serve statistics, which are sparser for Challenger and lower-level events, and the tour average they are compared with covers every year on record. Head-to-head records count every meeting with a recorded winner, walkovers and retirements included. Charts and tables are a snapshot and do not update after publication.

About the desk

Who works on the Tennis Desk and how an article is put together. [Read about the desk](https://courtshark.ai/blog/about-the-desk/)

Editorial standards

What we publish, what we check and how we decide what is fit to print. [Read our standards](https://courtshark.ai/blog/editorial-standards/)

Corrections

Spotted an error? Write to hello@courtshark.ai and we will correct it and note the change. [Read the corrections policy](https://courtshark.ai/blog/editorial-standards/)