Sabalenka vs Pegula: US Open Final Analysis
Sabalenka strikes balance between power and precision; wins the battle in longer rallies, Pegula’s (lack of) footspeed, second serves get punished
Sabalenka d. Pegula 7-5, 7-5.
Aryna Sabalenka claimed her first US Open title and third Grand Slam title overall on Saturday evening, defeating Jessica Pegula in an enthralling final that featured numerous momentum swings. Sabalenka atoned for her loss to Coco Gauff in last year’s final, while Pegula acquitted herself admirably in her first-ever Grand Slam final appearance.
Let’s get into the analysis.
Sabalenka’s heavy hitting
It’s no secret that Sabalenka hits some of the heaviest balls on the WTA Tour. She generates immense power from both her forehand and backhand wings, allowing her to pin opponents to the baseline and dictate points. She also possesses a damaging first serve that generates regular +1 opportunities. Add in that these US Open courts have been very quick, and it makes for a fearsome combination for opponents.
Although Pegula is one of the few who has the defensive skills to absorb some of Sabalenka’s hitting – Sabalenka still managed to blast 40 winners from 88 points won.
Here’s an early example from the first set – despite a strong Pegula return, Sabalenka is able to push Pegula from side-to-side behind the baseline with two strong backhands, before coming forward to finish the point:
Look at the power that Sabalenka is able to generate on the forehand wing after a strong Pegula return – there’s not much that Pegula can do to stop it:
A nice example of point construction by Sabalenka, set up by her raw hitting power. She strikes with a heavy off-backhand, getting the short ball in reply, and consequently stepping up and hitting a topspin-heavy forehand, allowing her to approach the net with time to spare:
Sabalenka shows variety in longer rallies, exploits Pegula’s lack of footspeed
Sabalenka is not just a one-dimensional player – in fact, the most decisive factor in the match was not Sabalenka’s power, but her shot variety, particularly in longer rallies. She used the drop shot and low approach shots to her advantage, including on critical points, and in the process exploited Pegula’s somewhat slow court coverage.
Sabalenka won 12/15 (80%) points on rallies that were 9+ shots, which is an impressive feat against Pegula, who is rock-solid at keeping balls in play and has strong defensive skills. Overall, for rallies extending beyond 5 shots, Sabalenka won nearly two-thirds (65%):
Take this first example, where the Sabalenka drop shot brings Pegula forward to the net. Pegula is a bit slow to get up to the drop shot, and ends up scooping a ball right into the Sabalenka forehand hitting zone, where she executes a lovely passing shot on the run:
An example of Sabalenka’s continued variety on big points comes at set point #5 in the first set. Pegula is once again behind the baseline, trying to get back into a central position, anticipating another big strike from Sabalenka. Sabalenka hits a nicely disguised drop shot cross-court. Pegula can’t get to the ball with enough time to spare, and Sabalenka claimed the set:
Another example here from the first set, where Sabalenka gets forward and has to play a difficult volley from just inside the service line. Pegula is behind the baseline at the time the volley is played, and reacts fairly well. The Sabalenka volley sits up, but Pegula still can’t quite get there in time – she has to play an attempted cross-court forehand while heavily on the stretch:
Second serves get punished
Another point of note in the final was how both Pegula and Sabalenka punished each other’s second serves. Sabalenka ended up with the edge, but still won well under half of her own second serve points:
One of the main reasons for the low percentage of second serve points won for both players was due to aggressive return positioning, and a strong overall quality of return shot. Both players stepped inside the baseline when facing a second serve, allowing them to drive into the return shot and place the server under immediate pressure. Here are a couple of examples below:
Here’s how the point played out:
Sabalenka wasn’t quite as aggressive with her return positioning as Pegula, but she was still easily able to hit through the ball when returning:
The following clip doesn’t show the whole point, but Sabalenka clearly grabs the initiative following the return:
Overall thoughts
The match felt like it was on Sabalenka’s racquet, and she was able to deliver in the big moments. Sabalenka found a successful mix of power and touch and she was tactically flexible. She was able to hit big groundstrokes throughout the match, but she was equally able to execute drop shots and approach shots when the stakes were higher, improving her margin for error.
Hitting 40 winners in two sets against one of the better defenders on tour is testament to Sabalenka’s match-winning ability – she can simply blow players off the court.
Pegula also had moments throughout the match too – she was on the verge of going up 6-5 in the first set, and led 5-3 in the second set, but she was unable to capitalise, and then struggled to arrest the Sabalenka momentum. I wrote a couple of weeks ago that she might lack an ‘X-factor’, but she clearly has the all-around ability to push deep into slams consistently. It would also be amiss to not mention the hugely successful summer she has put together – she’s 16-2 in her last 18 matches, with two losses only to Sabalenka.
I’ll get some analysis up for Sinner vs Fritz at some point later in the week. Thanks again for reading. -AP