Jessica Pegula vs. Emma Navarro — US Open 2026 Quarterfinal Match Report
Emma Navarro arrived in this quarterfinal carrying serious form and, for more than a set, she looked capable of taking the whole evening with her.
She made the sharper start, broke quickly, absorbed the noise of the occasion and repeatedly forced Jessica Pegula into hard, bruising rallies. Navarro was not just competitive. She was setting the agenda.
But Pegula gradually found a way through.
As the match went on, she began accelerating more decisively through the forehand wing, striking winners from that side in the fiercest exchanges and gradually pulling a contest that had initially belonged to Navarro in her own direction. The result was a 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 comeback win that sends Pegula into the US Open semifinals.
Navarro had thrown just about everything at her friend.
Pegula still found the exit.
Navarro Starts Fast and Takes the First Set
Navarro stole the show early.
She held the opening game, broke Pegula for 2-0, and immediately forced the No. 3 seed onto the back foot.
Pegula did respond. She broke back for 2-1 and held for 2-2, giving the set the look of a quick reset.
It was not.
Navarro went back in front with a hold for 3-2, then broke again for 4-2. That was the decisive turn of the set. She consolidated for 5-2, and although Pegula held once more for 3-5, Navarro served it out cleanly for 6-3.
The quality of the hitting was already obvious. These were not cautious rallies. Both players were leaning into the ball and asking the other to stand up physically and mentally.
At that stage, Navarro was doing it better.
Set 1 at a Glance
- Navarro won her service games 4 of 5, well ahead of Pegula’s 2 of 4.
- Navarro won 57% of pressure points (13 of 23) against Pegula’s 43% (10 of 23).
- Navarro closed out the set 42 to 38 on total points, despite both players committing 5 double faults apiece.
Full Set 1 Stats
| Pegula | Statistic | Navarro |
|---|---|---|
| Set 1 Duration: 0h50m | ||
| 0.93 | Dominance Ratio | 1.07 |
| 10 | Winners | 8 |
| 14 | Unforced Errors | 14 |
| 201 | Serve Rating | 240 |
| 1 | Aces | 1 |
| 5 | Double Faults | 5 |
| 47% (15/32) | 1st Serve % | 56% (27/48) |
| 73% (11/15) | 1st Serve Points Won | 70% (19/27) |
| 50% (2/4) | Break Points Saved | 80% (4/5) |
| 50% (2/4) | Service Games | 80% (4/5) |
| 35% (6/17) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 38% (8/21) |
| 132 | Return Rating | 192 |
| 30% (8/27) | 1st Return Points Won | 27% (4/15) |
| 20% (1/5) | Break Points Won | 50% (2/4) |
| 20% (1/5) | Return Games | 50% (2/4) |
| 62% (13/21) | 2nd Return Points Won | 65% (11/17) |
| 38 | Total Points Won | 42 |
Pegula Finds the Forehand Route Back
The second set was where Pegula began to solve the match.
She held for 1-0, matched Navarro through the opening exchanges and then earned the first real edge of the set by breaking for 3-1.
Navarro refused to let it run away. She broke back immediately for 3-2 and then held for 3-3, keeping Pegula from getting clear daylight.
But the balance of the match had shifted.
Pegula was now getting more purchase from the forehand side, especially in rallies that had previously been neutral or slightly favourable to Navarro. She held for 4-3, stayed steady through 5-4, and then broke once more to take the set 6-4.
That closing stretch mattered.
Navarro had started the match with the cleaner edge, but Pegula had found a way to speed the baseline exchanges up just enough to make them tilt in her direction.
Set 2 at a Glance
- Navarro hit 4 aces to Pegula’s 1, and won 60% of pressure points (6 of 10) against Pegula’s 40% (4 of 10).
- Pegula still won her service games 4 of 5, well ahead of Navarro’s 3 of 5.
- Pegula closed out the set 35 to 31 on total points, despite committing fewer aces and winning fewer pressure points.
Full Set 2 Stats
| Pegula | Statistic | Navarro |
|---|---|---|
| Set 2 Duration: 0h47m | ||
| 1.25 | Dominance Ratio | 0.80 |
| 7 | Winners | 11 |
| 6 | Unforced Errors | 10 |
| 263 | Serve Rating | 230 |
| 1 | Aces | 4 |
| 0 | Double Faults | 1 |
| 70% (19/27) | 1st Serve % | 64% (25/39) |
| 74% (14/19) | 1st Serve Points Won | 60% (15/25) |
| 0% (0/1) | Break Points Saved | 50% (2/4) |
| 80% (4/5) | Service Games | 60% (3/5) |
| 38% (3/8) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 43% (6/14) |
| 187 | Return Rating | 209 |
| 40% (10/25) | 1st Return Points Won | 26% (5/19) |
| 50% (2/4) | Break Points Won | 100% (1/1) |
| 40% (2/5) | Return Games | 20% (1/5) |
| 57% (8/14) | 2nd Return Points Won | 63% (5/8) |
| 35 | Total Points Won | 31 |
The Decider Turns on Pegula’s Response at 1-2
The third set still refused to settle quietly.
Pegula held for 1-0, Navarro answered for 1-1, and then broke for 2-1, briefly putting herself back in the driving seat.
That moment could have become dangerous for Pegula.
Instead, she reacted immediately.
Pegula broke back for 2-2, held for 3-2, and then produced the most important break of the set for 4-2. Once she backed it up for 5-2, the match had finally tilted decisively her way.
Navarro managed one last hold for 5-3, but Pegula served out the match fighting off a break point at 6-3.
It was not a collapse from Navarro. It was more that Pegula, after spending much of the opening set trying to live with the pace and intensity, had finally found a winning pattern inside it.
Set 3 at a Glance
- Pegula saved 86% of break points faced (6 of 7), while Navarro managed just 33% (1 of 3).
- Pegula won 61% of pressure points (11 of 18) against Navarro’s 39% (7 of 18).
- Pegula closed out the set decisively, 38 to 29 on total points, converting 2 of 3 break chances to Navarro’s 1 of 7.
Full Set 3 Stats
| Pegula | Statistic | Navarro |
|---|---|---|
| Set 3 Duration: 0h45m | ||
| 1.30 | Dominance Ratio | 0.77 |
| 14 | Winners | 8 |
| 10 | Unforced Errors | 7 |
| 260 | Serve Rating | 198 |
| 4 | Aces | 3 |
| 3 | Double Faults | 1 |
| 66% (27/41) | 1st Serve % | 54% (14/26) |
| 63% (17/27) | 1st Serve Points Won | 50% (7/14) |
| 86% (6/7) | Break Points Saved | 33% (1/3) |
| 80% (4/5) | Service Games | 50% (2/4) |
| 50% (7/14) | 2nd Serve Points Won | 42% (5/12) |
| 225 | Return Rating | 121 |
| 50% (7/14) | 1st Return Points Won | 37% (10/27) |
| 67% (2/3) | Break Points Won | 14% (1/7) |
| 50% (2/4) | Return Games | 20% (1/5) |
| 58% (7/12) | 2nd Return Points Won | 50% (7/14) |
| 38 | Total Points Won | 29 |
A Match of Heavy Hitting and Thin Margins
The statistics reflect how physical and close much of this contest felt.
Pegula finished with a slight edge in winners, 31 to 27, while both women ended almost level in unforced errors: 30 for Pegula, 31 for Navarro.
The overall point total was also tight:
- Pegula: 111 points won
- Navarro: 102 points won
Both served aggressively, both mixed strong moments with instability, and both piled up free points and loose errors:
- Pegula: 6 aces, 8 double faults
- Navarro: 8 aces, 7 double faults
Where Pegula did separate herself was in the return numbers and in the way she handled the middle of the match. She won 60% of Navarro’s second-serve points, and once the rallies became more heated, she increasingly found the courage to accelerate first.
That was the real difference.
Navarro made this a fight.
Pegula found the slightly more damaging blows.
Emma Navarro’s Recent Form Before This Quarterfinal
Navarro did not arrive here by accident. She had built one of the more impressive runs of the tournament, and it helps explain why Pegula had to work so hard to get through.
Emma Navarro’s Road to the Quarterfinals
| Round | Opponent | Result | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| R128 | Lois Boisson | 7-6(6), 6-7(1), 6-3 | 2:46 |
| R64 | Caty McNally | 3-6, 6-2, 6-3 | 2:46 |
| R32 | Karolina Muchova | 6-3, 7-5 | 1:47 |
| R16 | Anna Kalinskaya | 6-4, 6-2 | 1:21 |
That is a run containing two long three-set matches followed by straight-set wins over Karolina Muchova and Anna Kalinskaya. Navarro had arrived sharpened by the draw and full of belief, and for long stretches of this quarterfinal she played like it.
Pegula Survives the Kitchen Sink
This was not a gentle passage into the last four.
Navarro came out swinging, took the first set, and made Pegula earn nearly every comfortable moment she found afterwards. The rallies were fierce, the serving was uneven but dangerous, and neither player was given much room to breathe.
In the end, Pegula’s experience and shot selection carried her through. Once she began driving the forehand with more authority, the match started to bend her way.
Navarro had really thrown the kitchen sink at her.
Pegula still prevailed.
That sends her into the US Open semifinals, where Aryna Sabalenka awaits. And if this quarterfinal proved anything, it is that Pegula is still standing not because her path has been easy, but because she keeps finding the right answer once a match turns difficult.