Elena Rybakina booked her place in the US Open final with a 3-6, 6-4, 6-4 win over Coco Gauff at Arthur Ashe Stadium. The No. 2 seed turned a slow start into a measured comeback, leaning on superior first-serve effectiveness and heavier returning in sets two and three. Gauff, the No. 4 seed, struck first with a clean opening set, but Rybakina won the bigger patterns over the last two. The final tally shows Rybakina took 88 points to Gauff’s 82 and won four return games to three, enough to swing a tight semifinal on the New York hardcourt. Full numbers and point-by-point are on the Sofascore match page.

Set one belonged to Gauff, but Rybakina stayed within range

Gauff came out sharp and accurate, taking the first set 6-3 behind standout serving. She landed 11 of 15 points behind her first serve, a 73% win rate, and added 79% on second serve (11 of 14), which kept Rybakina away from early break chances. The American also mixed in four aces, with just one double fault, and controlled the baseline enough to grab the only break of the set. On return, Gauff won 33% of first-serve return points and 46% against second serves, a blend that kept Rybakina under pressure in her four service games. The scoreboard reflected it: Gauff led service points won 22 to 15 and receiver points 10 to 7.

Even then, Rybakina left clues of what would come. Her serve wasn’t firing at peak yet, but she still won two-thirds of her first-serve points in the opener and avoided damage on her own second serve. She also limited errors on the forehand side in that set, preserving energy for a longer battle. The gap was manageable, and the match stayed tight in rallies despite Gauff’s early momentum. That foundation helped Rybakina flip the return dynamic later on.

Serve vs return: the numbers that turned the match

Overall, Gauff actually put a higher percentage of first serves in play, 59% to 55%, and she won more total service points, 57 to 51. The difference was how valuable each player’s first ball was. Rybakina won 76% of her first-serve points (32 of 42) compared with Gauff’s 58% (32 of 55), which blunted Gauff’s strong serving volume. Gauff countered with an edge on second-serve points won, 64% to 56%, but that wasn’t enough once Rybakina found her groove on return.

Return efficiency told the real story. Rybakina captured 41% of first-serve return points (23 of 55), while Gauff managed 23% (10 of 42). That first-serve return gap shows how often Rybakina neutralized Gauff’s biggest weapon in the last two sets. Gauff did lead on second-serve return points, 44% to 35%, and both players saved two break points overall. But the margins at key moments leaned Rybakina’s way, with four breaks converted to Gauff’s three. Add it up and Rybakina’s superior first-strike tennis on serve and a heavier hit on first-serve returns swung the final two sets.

Shot patterns: Rybakina’s forehand fire vs Gauff’s balance

The winners-to-errors profile explains the tactical trade-offs. Rybakina finished with 21 winners to Gauff’s 16, powered by 11 forehand winners to Gauff’s 1. That heavy forehand let the Kazakhstani dictate more rallies when on the front foot, and it paid off in the second and third sets. Gauff’s backhand was a steady source of damage, with 6 backhand winners to Rybakina’s 5, and she also cleaned up anything floating high by producing 5 overhead winners to none for Rybakina. At net, Rybakina added four volley winners to Gauff’s one, another nudge toward taking time away.

Errors were split in interesting ways. Gauff finished with fewer unforced errors, 30 to Rybakina’s 37, including fewer backhand unforced errors (12 to 22). But Gauff had more total errors overall, 35 to 25, driven by 21 forehand miscues compared with Rybakina’s 9. The picture is consistent: Rybakina accepted some risk, especially on the backhand, to unlock forehand winners and take bigger cuts on the return. Gauff’s steadiness held up for long stretches, but the higher pay-off shots landed often enough for Rybakina in the final two sets.

Second-set swing and a third-set clampdown

Rybakina’s pivot arrived in set two. She tightened the serve, adding two aces while Gauff’s three double faults crept in. The No. 2 seed improved her first-serve points won to 71% for the set and lifted second-serve points to 73%. On return, she grabbed 46% of first-serve return points and 42% against Gauff’s second serve, flipping the pressure. The set’s break numbers showed it too: Rybakina converted two break points to Gauff’s one, enough for 6-4 and a reset.

Set three was where Rybakina took control of the margins. Gauff raised her first-serve percentage to 71% and hit 100% on second-serve accuracy for the set, yet Rybakina cut through that with elite first-strike tennis. She won an imposing 88% of first-serve points (14 of 16) and attacked Gauff’s first serve on return, winning 48% of those points. Even though Gauff saved 2 of 4 break points in the decider, Rybakina still converted two breaks to one and posted a 6-4 clincher. The third set’s split of receiver points, 18 to 8 for Rybakina, underlined how her return did the late heavy lifting.

By the numbers: where the semifinal was decided

The match produced several clean statistical markers. Total points went to Rybakina, 88 to 82, and total games finished 15 to 14. Both players held 11 service games, so the return column decided it, with Rybakina winning four return games to Gauff’s three. On first-serve effectiveness, Rybakina’s 76% win rate dwarfed Gauff’s 58%, the single biggest differential across the sheet. On second serve, Gauff’s 64% beat Rybakina’s 56%, but it didn’t outweigh the first-serve gap.

As for the attacking columns, Rybakina’s 21 winners, led by those 11 forehand strikes, contrasted with Gauff’s heavier overhead finishing. Gauff’s overall error count was higher at 35, with 33 of those on groundstrokes, while Rybakina kept total errors to 25. Unforced numbers tilted slightly the other way, 37 for Rybakina to 30 for Gauff, a sign that Rybakina was willing to miss in search of initiative. The payoff came via return success, especially in the last set. Add in a slim edge in break points converted, 4 to 3, and the semifinal math lined up cleanly with the scoreboard.

What it means for the title match

Rybakina’s path to the final highlights a reliable blueprint on hardcourt: high first-serve conversion, first‑ball dominance, and the courage to attack on return. When the first serve hit its mark, she was nearly untouchable, and when she got looks at Gauff’s first serve late, she made them count. Gauff’s serve numbers and second-serve poise were strong enough to win many matches, but Rybakina’s first-strike edge and heavier returning narrowed her service holds just enough. The result was decided by a handful of games and a few more points, which is exactly how 3-6, 6-4, 6-4 reads.

With the semifinal complete, Rybakina moves on to the championship match at the US Open, Women. Fans can track live momentum swings, in-depth stats, and point-by-point details on Sofascore throughout finals weekend. For this match, the keys were clear: first-serve value, first-serve return pressure, and the forehand as a shot-maker. If those trends hold, Rybakina’s game is built to travel in a final. Gauff leaves with a quality serving display and plenty of positives, especially her second-serve resilience and backhand production. In a tight semifinal, the numbers show why one more return game won was all Rybakina needed.