Marta Kostyuk found her control early and returned to it when the match demanded it most.
In a semi-final shaped by sharp swings, the Ukrainian managed the key moments with greater clarity, defeating Anastasia Potapova 6-2, 1-6, 6-1 to reach her first WTA 1000 final.
It was a match that shifted repeatedly. Kostyuk handled those shifts better—and that decided it.
Fast start, missed chances, and a first-set cushion
Kostyuk settled first.
A composed hold opened proceedings before she quickly moved 2-0 ahead, breaking early as Potapova struggled to find rhythm. The Ukrainian’s early control came not from overwhelming power, but from cleaner construction—longer rallies, better depth, and fewer rushed decisions.
The middle phase of the set, however, hinted at a more complicated match.
At 3-0, Potapova had a clear route back. Two break points came and went, each time Kostyuk shutting the door with four consecutive points. Moments later, the pattern flipped. Kostyuk herself missed two break points at 3-1, allowing Potapova on the board.
Those exchanges mattered.
They kept the gap intact.
At 5-2, Kostyuk moved to close. She surged to 0-40 on the Potapova serve, but three set points slipped away. The fourth did not. She broke again to seal the set 6-2, taking control without ever fully running away from the contest.
Marta Kostyuk vs Anastasia Potapova – Set One Stats
| Statistic | Marta Kostyuk | Anastasia Potapova |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.66 | 0.60 |
| Winners | 7 | 6 |
| Unforced Errors | 9 | 21 |
| Serve Rating | 286 | 207 |
| Aces | 0 | 0 |
| Double Faults | 1 | 3 |
| 1st Serve % | 46% (11/24) | 59% (17/29) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 64% (7/11) | 59% (10/17) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 77% (10/13) | 42% (5/12) |
| Break Points Saved | 100% (2/2) | 71% (5/7) |
| Service Games | 100% (4/4) | 50% (2/4) |
| Ace % | 0% | 0% |
| Double Fault % | 4.2% | 10.3% |
| Return Rating | 178 | 59 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 41% (7/17) | 36% (4/11) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 58% (7/12) | 23% (3/13) |
| Break Points Won | 29% (2/7) | 0% (0/2) |
| Return Games | 50% (2/4) | 0% (0/4) |
| Pressure Points | 54% (7/13) | 46% (6/13) |
| Service Points | 71% (17/24) | 52% (15/29) |
| Return Points | 48% (14/29) | 29% (7/24) |
| Total Points | 58% (31/53) | 42% (22/53) |
| Set 1 Duration | 0h35m | |
Potapova flips the match
The second set turned sharply.
Potapova broke immediately and, this time, did not hesitate. She backed it up with a hold under pressure—saving a break point—to move 3-0 ahead, then extended into a double and soon triple break lead.
Where Kostyuk had been measured, Potapova became direct. She shortened rallies, attacked second serves, and forced errors from positions where the Ukrainian had previously been stable.
At 5-0, a bagel loomed.
Kostyuk resisted briefly, breaking to love to get on the board, but the shift had already taken hold. Potapova served it out comfortably at 6-1, levelling the match and resetting everything.
Marta Kostyuk vs Anastasia Potapova – Set Two Stats
| Statistic | Marta Kostyuk | Anastasia Potapova |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 0.63 | 1.59 |
| Winners | 4 | 4 |
| Unforced Errors | 17 | 10 |
| Serve Rating | 92 | 216 |
| Aces | 0 | 0 |
| Double Faults | 3 | 1 |
| 1st Serve % | 46% (11/24) | 94% (16/17) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 18% (2/11) | 56% (9/16) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 33% (4/12) | 0% (0/4) |
| Break Points Saved | 43% (3/7) | 50% (1/2) |
| Service Games | 0% (0/4) | 67% (2/3) |
| Ace % | 0% | 0% |
| Double Fault % | 12.5% | 5.9% |
| Return Rating | 227 | 306 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 44% (7/16) | 82% (9/11) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 100% (4/4) | 67% (8/12) |
| Break Points Won | 50% (1/2) | 57% (4/7) |
| Return Games | 33% (1/3) | 100% (4/4) |
| Pressure Points | 33% (4/12) | 67% (8/12) |
| Service Points | 25% (6/24) | 53% (9/17) |
| Return Points | 47% (8/17) | 75% (18/24) |
| Total Points | 34% (14/41) | 66% (27/41) |
| Set 2 Duration | 0h29m | |
Decider: momentum breaks again
The third set did not settle—it flipped again.
Kostyuk broke immediately to lead 1-0, reasserting control before Potapova could carry momentum forward. This time, the Ukrainian did not let it drift. She consolidated, broke again, and quickly surged to 3-0.
At 4-0, the match had tilted decisively.
Potapova managed to stop the run at 4-1, but the chances to extend the set came and went. At 5-1, she held three break points to claw back into contention. All three slipped.
That was the final opening.
Kostyuk closed the match in the next game, sealing her place in the final after 1 hour and 36 minutes.
Marta Kostyuk vs Anastasia Potapova – Set Three Stats
| Statistic | Marta Kostyuk | Anastasia Potapova |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance Ratio | 1.57 | 0.64 |
| Winners | 6 | 6 |
| Unforced Errors | 10 | 15 |
| Serve Rating | 283 | 162 |
| Aces | 1 | 0 |
| Double Faults | 1 | 2 |
| 1st Serve % | 68% (17/25) | 70% (16/23) |
| 1st Serve Points Won | 71% (12/17) | 56% (9/16) |
| 2nd Serve Points Won | 44% (4/9) | 13% (1/8) |
| Break Points Saved | 100% (3/3) | 25% (1/4) |
| Service Games | 100% (3/3) | 25% (1/4) |
| Ace % | 4% | 0% |
| Double Fault % | 4% | 8.7% |
| Return Rating | 282 | 85 |
| 1st Return Points Won | 44% (7/16) | 29% (5/17) |
| 2nd Return Points Won | 88% (7/8) | 56% (5/9) |
| Break Points Won | 75% (3/4) | 0% (0/3) |
| Return Games | 75% (3/4) | 0% (0/3) |
| Pressure Points | 75% (9/12) | 25% (3/12) |
| Service Points | 64% (16/25) | 43% (10/23) |
| Return Points | 57% (13/23) | 36% (9/25) |
| Total Points | 60% (29/48) | 40% (19/48) |
| Set 3 Duration | 0h34m | |
Full match stats: control in the margins
The numbers reflect a match played on fine edges rather than dominance.
Kostyuk finished with a slight overall advantage, winning 52% of total points and posting a dominance ratio of 1.09 to Potapova’s 0.92. The key difference came in second-serve effectiveness and return pressure.
She won 53% of points behind her second serve, compared to just 25% for Potapova—a gap that proved decisive across momentum swings. On return, Kostyuk also controlled second-serve exchanges, winning 75% of those points.
Break opportunities told a similar story. Kostyuk converted 6 of 13, while Potapova managed 4 of 12, with several missed chances coming at critical moments—particularly late in the decider.
Despite similar winner counts (17 to 16), Potapova’s higher unforced error total (46 to 36) underlined the risk in her more aggressive phases.
First at this level, earned the hard way
This was not a linear performance from Kostyuk.
She built the lead, lost it, and rebuilt it again—each time adjusting just enough to regain control. That ability to reset, rather than dominate throughout, defined the match.
There was no handshake at the net, a familiar reminder of the wider context surrounding matches involving Ukrainian players.
But on court, the message was clear.
Kostyuk reaches her first WTA 1000 final by navigating it better than her opponent. In Madrid this week, that has been enough to take her one step further than ever before.