Linda Noskova led 4-1 in both sets against Coco Gauff at Indian Wells on Tuesday and won 6-3, 6-3 in 75 minutes, which put her into the semifinals of the WTA Finals with a round-robin match to spare. She broke Gauff five times, four of them in the first set, converted five of nine break points and won 18 of the 24 points Gauff played behind her second serve.
“I wish I started off serving a little bit better,” Gauff said. “I think if I was serving better, maybe I could’ve put some more pressure on those return games.” She added: “She was starting up a break a lot, and it’s much easier to serve when you’re up a break.”
Earlier on the same court, Jessica Pegula won the first nine points against Marta Kostyuk, broke at love in the opening game and took the first set 6-2 in half an hour. Kostyuk made 17 unforced errors in that set to Pegula’s three. The second set was tighter, but a Kostyuk double fault late in it gave Pegula the chance to serve for the match, and she closed out a 6-2, 7-5 win in an hour and 29 minutes. Pegula won 76 per cent of her first-serve points; Kostyuk finished with nine double faults.
“I served better today than I have, and she’s such a good returner,” Pegula said. “She puts so much pressure on the return. I think it’s one of the best things she does.”
The table. Noskova is 2-0 and through. Gauff and Pegula are 1-1. Kostyuk is 0-2 and cannot reach the semifinals. Group 1 finishes on Thursday with Gauff against Kostyuk and Pegula against Noskova. The outcomes laid out in Tuesday’s Group 1 scenarios have now collapsed to one question: Gauff or Pegula.
What Gauff needs. Two results. She has to beat Kostyuk, and she needs Noskova to beat Pegula. If both happen, Noskova wins the group with three wins and Gauff finishes second on 2-1.
What Pegula needs. Any other combination. A win over Noskova sends her through whatever Gauff does. If Gauff and Pegula both win, three players finish on 2-1 and the share of sets won decides the order. Gauff cannot finish with more than four sets won from seven, and Noskova and Pegula both end above that whatever the scores, so Gauff would be third. If Gauff loses to Kostyuk, Pegula goes through even if she loses to Noskova: Pegula, Gauff and Kostyuk would all be 1-2, and neither Gauff nor Kostyuk can match Pegula’s share of sets won. The steps are set out in WTA Finals round-robin tiebreakers explained.
Who wins the group. It matters, because each group winner plays the runner-up from the other group. Noskova finishes first if she beats Pegula. If Pegula beats her and Gauff loses, Pegula and Noskova are both 2-1 and Pegula wins the group on their head-to-head. If Pegula beats Noskova and Gauff also wins, the sets count decides it: a straight-sets Pegula win puts Pegula first, while a three-set Pegula win leaves Noskova first, with five sets won from seven to Pegula’s five from eight.
Noskova said she would not be doing the arithmetic. “First of all, I did not even know I was in the semis, to start with that,” she said. “Right after the match finished, I was already focusing on how I’m going to play Jessie (Pegula) in two days.” She added: “I’m not really playing the math here, so it’s not going to be any different.” Noskova has won three of their four meetings.
Kostyuk. She is in Indian Wells as the first alternate, called in when Elena Rybakina pulled out ill before her first match, as listed on GTN’s WTA Finals 2026 withdrawals page. She has played through a right wrist injury since the Asian swing, and she still decides Gauff’s fate on Thursday. “Overall, I think I was pretty happy with my return today. You can obviously be better, everything can be better,” Kostyuk said. “Next time, maybe I’ll be more ready.” How alternates enter and how their results count is covered in WTA Finals alternates explained.
Group 2. Aryna Sabalenka and Mirra Andreeva both won their openers and meet on Wednesday, after Elina Svitolina plays Karolina Muchova. Group 2 finishes on Friday. Dates, points and prize money are in the WTA Finals guide, and past champions are in most WTA Finals titles.
