TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in A. Anisimova vs S. Kenin (Wimbledon on 2026-07-01) — the market is efficient, with A. Anisimova favoured at 1.13.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | A. Anisimova | S. Kenin |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
82.5% | 17.5% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
72.5% | 27.5% |
| Serve / return point-by-point simulation |
64.6% | 35.4% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
76.1% | 23.9% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
83.8% | 16.2% |
We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?
| Player | Surface | Elo | Record | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Anisimova | hard | 1994 | 90–46 | 136 |
| S. Kenin | hard | 1633 | 87–86 | 173 |
Our own ratings, computed from match results since 2018. Players with fewer than 5 rated matches are omitted rather than shown at a provisional starting value. Last updated March 24, 2026.
Level at 1–1 over 2 meetings. Full record.
| Date | Event | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2, 2026 | Wimbledon | grass | A. Anisimova | 2 - 1 |
| April 5, 2025 | Charleston | clay | S. Kenin | 0 - 0 |
| L | M. Keys | 1 - 2 | July 4, 2026 |
| W | S. Kenin | 2 - 1 | July 2, 2026 |
| W | L. Gjorcheska | 2 - 0 | June 30, 2026 |
| L | I. Jovic | 2 - 1 | June 12, 2026 |
| W | L. Siegemund | 0 - 2 | June 10, 2026 |
| L | L. Stefanini | 1 - 2 | Aug. 1, 2026 |
| L | E. Navarro | 2 - 0 | July 27, 2026 |
| L | A. Anisimova | 2 - 1 | July 2, 2026 |
| W | P. Marcinko | 0 - 2 | June 30, 2026 |
| L | D. Snigur | 0 - 2 | June 20, 2026 |
All July 1, 2026 results & picks →
═══ A. Anisimova vs S. Kenin — Wimbledon (grass) 1/32-finals ═══
MODELS
ELO: 82.5% A
ML: 72.5% A
Serve/Return: 64.6% A
Model (ens): 76.1% A | Market: 83.8% A (A 1.13 / B 5.85)
Value pick: B (+7.7% edge post-shrinkage) — model-vs-market artifact only
FORM (last 90d)
Anisimova (A): grass 6/30 DOM vs Gjorcheska (1609,Avg) 6-3 6-2; 6/10 DOM vs
Siegemund (1704,Strong) 6-1 6-3; L to Jovic (1872,Elite) in 3. Clay (FO)
scratchy but off-surface. Live grass form is strong — two dominant wins,
one over a Strong opponent.
Kenin (B): 6/30 GRIND vs Marcinko (1626,Avg) 7-6 4-6→won in 2 tough sets;
reached Nottingham Final (LOST 3-6 4-6, 16d ago); L Eastbourne SF 3-6 1-6
blowout; L Nottingham 1/16 in 3. Mixed grass — a final run but leaky.
FATIGUE
A: matches_14d=1, ~54min last court time, 3 sets — fresh.
B: matches_14d=3, ~212min last court time, 9 sets — heavy legs.
Court-time diff >60min → Kenin (the underdog) disadvantaged. Fatigue
reinforces the favorite, does NOT support the value side.
NARRATIVE
Let-down: Kenin LOST Nottingham Final 16d ago (NOTE, outside actionable window).
Venue: neutral (first meeting context at SW19).
Title recency: none.
VERDICT — PASS
Every model favors A; market favors A even harder. The only "edge" is the
76% vs 84% gap producing a nominal +7.7% on B — a pure math artifact with
ZERO qualitative support. Live grass form (A dominant) and fatigue (A far
fresher, B 212min grind) both point AT the favorite, not the dog. Backing a
5.85 underdog against consensus + form + rest is a trap. No validated edge.