This event is complete, so the page has been converted from a pre-event prediction into a factual archive. Mirra Andreeva beat Marta Kostyuk 6-1, 6-3 in 76 minutes to reach her first Grand Slam final and end Kostyuk's 17-match winning streak. There are no current odds, live picks or bookmaker calls to action below.
The Marta Kostyuk vs Mirra Andreeva result and event details were checked against official source 1 and official source 2 and official source 3. Statistics not published by those sources are not added. Tactical explanations are editorial analysis and are kept separate from the official record.
Result at a glance
| Detail | Verified information |
|---|---|
| Round | Women's singles semifinal |
| Final score | Andreeva won 6-1, 6-3 |
| Duration | 76 minutes |
| Aces | Kostyuk 1, Andreeva 2 |
| Double faults | Kostyuk 4, Andreeva 3 |
| Break points converted | Kostyuk 1/5, Andreeva 5/13 |
| Total points won | Kostyuk 49, Andreeva 68 |
Andreeva controlled the opening pattern
Andreeva settled immediately and moved to a 4-0 lead after only 16 minutes. The official Roland Garros live account shows that she broke in the opening game, recovered from 0-40 in her first service game and broke again for 3-0. Those early points established the central pattern: Kostyuk could reach attacking positions, but Andreeva was more stable on the next ball and converted pressure into games.
The first set ended 6-1 after 33 minutes. Andreeva's advantage was not based on a high ace total; she finished the match with only two. Instead, she landed 73.1 percent of first serves and won 65.8 percent of her second-serve points. That second number mattered because it denied Kostyuk the repeated short returns needed to reverse the scoreboard.
Wind on Court Philippe-Chatrier increased the value of margin and footwork. Andreeva accepted safer height when necessary, then accelerated once she had balanced contact. Kostyuk's four double faults and lower first-serve percentage added pressure to service games that were already being contested from the baseline.
Return pressure explains the straight-set score
The WTA match page records five breaks from 13 opportunities for Andreeva, compared with one from five for Kostyuk. Break-point totals do not explain every rally, but they show that Andreeva reached pressure positions more often and converted a larger absolute number. Kostyuk could not protect enough service games to keep either set level.
Andreeva won 53.8 percent of her return points overall. Against Kostyuk's second serve, she won 65.6 percent. That was the clearest statistical separation in the match. Once the first serve missed, Kostyuk was frequently required to defend the next exchange rather than use it to establish court position.
Kostyuk still created a brief second-set recovery. From 1-4 she held, then broke Andreeva to love for 3-4. The comeback mattered because it tested whether the teenager would tighten near her first major final. Andreeva answered by breaking again and served out the match to 15, preventing one strong return game from becoming a full momentum change.
Rivalry history made the reversal meaningful
Kostyuk entered the semifinal leading their head-to-head 2-0. She had beaten Andreeva in Brisbane and again in the Madrid final, 6-3, 7-5. The Madrid result was particularly relevant because it came on clay only weeks before Roland Garros and supported the original pre-match case for Kostyuk.
The Paris result therefore represented a tactical reversal rather than confirmation of an established hierarchy. Andreeva improved first-serve stability, protected the second serve and prevented Kostyuk from turning return aggression into sustained control. The 6-1, 6-3 score was more decisive than either of their earlier meetings.
Kostyuk also arrived on a 17-match winning streak and had been unbeaten through a clay swing that included titles in Rouen and Madrid. Ending that run gave the semifinal additional context. It did not make Kostyuk's previous form irrelevant; it demonstrated that Andreeva solved a player who had been consistently winning on the same surface.
Tournament significance and evidence limits
The victory sent 19-year-old Andreeva into her first Grand Slam final. Roland Garros reported that she became the third-youngest major finalist of the 21st century. She later played Maja Chwalinska in the final, but that later result should not be used to alter what happened in this semifinal.
The official match page lists Andreeva with 68 of the 117 total points and Kostyuk with 49. That 58.1-percent share supports the straight-set margin, but it should not be converted into unsupported claims about rally length or shot speed. The archive uses published serve, return and break-point figures and labels tactical interpretation separately.
For future analysis, the useful question is whether the same serve-return relationship still exists. Rankings, fitness and surface conditions change. The 2026 semifinal establishes one verified solution by Andreeva; it does not guarantee that every later meeting will follow the same 76-minute pattern.
How to read this result in future analysis
The original pre-match selection favoured Kostyuk because she led the head-to-head 2-0, had beaten Andreeva in the Madrid final and carried a 17-match winning streak. Those were real inputs, not fabricated claims. The outcome shows why even a reasonable historical case must remain probabilistic: Andreeva changed the serve-return balance and won far more second-serve return points.
The most valuable correction is not simply replacing Kostyuk with Andreeva as the winner. It is identifying where the earlier view failed. Prior head-to-head results were weighted more heavily than Andreeva's ability to improve within the clay season. The Paris performance was more secure on first serve and much more damaging against Kostyuk's second serve than the old narrative allowed.
Kostyuk's second-set break at 2-4 prevents the review from becoming a story of uninterrupted control. She briefly reduced the margin and forced Andreeva to serve under pressure. Andreeva's immediate response—another break followed by a hold to 15—is therefore stronger evidence of composure than the 4-0 opening alone.
WTA and Roland Garros sources verify the score, duration, point totals, serve and return statistics, prior head-to-head, winning streak and first-major-final milestone. Descriptions of ball height, balance and tactical margin are editorial analysis based on the published sequence. The page contains no current odds or recommendation.
Later previews should check surface, second-serve protection and return position before using the old 2-1 head-to-head or this semifinal score. One result changed the rivalry evidence, but neither the old lead nor the new win should replace current match data.
Editorial verdict
Andreeva reversed the rivalry by controlling second-serve exchanges and producing more return pressure. Kostyuk's 17-match streak and 2-0 head-to-head were meaningful pre-match evidence, but Andreeva's 6-1, 6-3 performance established a new and more decisive data point.
This completed Roland Garros page is retained as a historical reference. It is not a current recommendation, and its old result should not be displayed as a scheduled or live event.
FAQ
Who won Kostyuk vs Andreeva at Roland Garros 2026?
Mirra Andreeva won 6-1, 6-3.
How long did the semifinal last?
The match lasted 76 minutes.
What was their head-to-head before the match?
Kostyuk led 2-0 after wins in Brisbane and Madrid.
How many break points did Andreeva convert?
She converted five of 13 break points.
Is this still a betting prediction?
No. It is a completed-match archive based on official result sources.