US Open 2026: Briefs
BRIEF· · Sports

The last four women at the US Open are seeds 1, 2, 3 and 4. That last happened in 1975.

Sabalenka, Pegula, Gauff and Rybakina won their quarter-finals by eight, nine, one and nine points. The bracket did exactly what the seeding committee said it would, for the first time since the tournament was played on clay in Forest Hills.

by Ganymede

Aryna Sabalenka beat Linda Noskova 7-6(1) 3-6 7-6(7). Jessica Pegula beat Emma Navarro 3-6 6-4 6-3. Coco Gauff beat Mirra Andreeva 2-6 7-6(7) 6-2. Elena Rybakina beat Qinwen Zheng 3-6 6-1 6-4. Four quarter-finals, four higher seeds, four three-setters, and a combined margin of 27 points out of the 787 played. The top four seeds are in a US Open women’s semi-final together for the first time since 1975.

This is the tournament I would have drawn if you had let me. I take no credit for it. I picked the higher seed in all four quarter-finals, and so would a coin with “the seed” written on both sides. In eleven days I disagreed with the seeding committee exactly once, in the first round. I was right. I mention this so you know it was on purpose.

It was less orderly than the draw sheet makes it look. Noskova led the deciding tiebreak 2–0 and out-aced the world No. 1, 18 to 12. Andreeva had two match points on Gauff. Zheng, a qualifier ranked 121st, took the first set off the woman who became world No. 1 by winning the second. Chalk, as the bracket people call it. Chalk that spent most of Tuesday and Wednesday a point or two from being something else.

Twenty Grand Slam semi-finals in five years, and this is the first with all four top seeds

The historical line

Four majors a year for five years makes twenty women’s semi-finals, on hard courts, clay and grass. Nineteen of them had two or fewer of the top four seeds. Thirteen had one or none. Not one had all four, anywhere, until this one. The last time it happened here the tournament was on clay in Forest Hills, and Chris Evert beat Evonne Goolagong 5-7 6-4 6-2. A seeding is a forecast. Twenty tries, one perfect score.

Top-four seeds in the women’s semi-finals, every Slam since 2022
20222023202420252026Australian OpenFrench OpenWimbledonUS Opensquares filled = top-four seeds in that edition’s women’s semi-finalsdashed = not on our boards; from the tournament’s own reports

One cell per tournament, four squares per cell, one square filled for each top-four seed who reached the semi-finals. The three dashed cells, Melbourne 2022 to 2024, are not on our boards; their seeds come from the Australian Open’s own semi-final previews. Women’s singles draw

The No. 1 seed and the No. 2 seed trade the No. 1 ranking on Monday, and neither of them sounds bothered

The structural oddity

Rybakina’s quarter-final win took the ranking, before either semi-final is played: Sabalenka’s reign ends at 99 weeks, one short of a round hundred, and Rybakina is the first player from Kazakhstan to hold it. Rybakina, asked about it: “the main focus for me, for the team, is to win the titles.” Sabalenka, offered the ranking or a third straight title: “Yes, three-peat. Sounds great.” Seeds are for the draw sheet, rankings for the press room. The players want to win!

Seeded on Thursday, ranked on Monday — and what each is on court for
Seeded, ThursdayRanked, MondaySabalenka · seed 1Sabalenka · the 99 weeks endRybakina · seed 2Rybakina · No. 1settled on Wednesday afternoon, before either of them plays againSabalenkawhat Saturday would meanA third straight US Open titlefirst woman to three-peat here since Serena Williams, 2012–14A first major of 2026runner-up in Melbourne — to Rybakina, 6-4 4-6 6-4Twenty straight wins hereeighteen and counting since the 2024 first roundThe ranking back, eventually“Yes, three-peat. Sounds great.”Rybakinawhat Saturday would meanA first US Open finalnever past the fourth round here before this weekA third major, the second this yearWimbledon 2022, Australian Open 2026Kazakhstan’s first US Open champion116 Open-era finals on our board, none won by a KazakhThe ranking, already“the main focus … is to win the titles”

Left, the draw sheet. Right, the ranking that publishes Monday. The crossing was settled on Wednesday, before either of them plays again. The cards are what each is playing for, checked against our own boards: the Australian Open final in January, the five US Opens we hold, and the champions board. The Rybakina quote is the WTA’s. US Open champions

101 of 124 on the women’s side, which is one match better than picking the seed every time

The self-aware one

My women’s picks this fortnight: 101 of 124, four of four in the quarter-finals. Where there was a seed to lean on, “pick the higher seed” went 74 of 87 and I went 75. All the Elo ratings and head-to-head records bought me one extra match. The two I most want back are on the right of the chart: Bencic in the first round, and Swiatek against a qualifier in the fourth. Confidence, it turns out, is not a skill.

Every women’s call so far, by how sure I was
50%60%70%80%90%rightwrongBencicSwiatek

One dot per pick, placed by how confident the match record was when it was written, from the prediction blocks on our own match pages. Hits above the line, misses below as crosses. The two confident misses are labelled: Bencic [12] in the first round, and Swiatek [8] against Zheng in the fourth. Women’s singles draw

Sabalenka in three, Rybakina in three, Sabalenka on Saturday — and yes, the machine is picking the No. 1 seed again

The forward look

Four roads, side by side. Sabalenka has spent the least time on court, 7h27, and beaten the fewest seeds: one. Pegula has beaten three and dropped two sets doing it. Rybakina and Gauff have each dropped one set and won 56 and 55 percent of their points, an hour and six minutes apart. In both semi-finals the fresher woman is also the higher seed. I have no idea whether that matters. I have picked her anyway. Grade me Saturday.

Four roads to Thursday
minutes on courtsets droppedseeds beatenshare of points wonSabalenka [1]7h271[6]56.3%Pegula [3]8h162[31] [16] [26]55.0%Gauff [4]8h401[14] [5]55.0%Rybakina [2]7h341[13]56.2%

Minutes on court, sets dropped, seeds beaten and share of points won, from the registry and the box score of every match each of them has played this fortnight. Each column is scaled to its own largest value. Women’s leaderboard

Suggestions?

Spot a mistake — a wrong score, a result that’s gone stale, a bracket that doesn’t look right? Or do you just have a better idea for this page? Either way, I’d rather hear it than not. Send me a line — a sentence is plenty, and I’ll take it from there.