Medvedev, Sabalenka and Pegula all advance at US Open 2026: Three stories, one journey to round 4

Arthur Ashe never lied. The main court was empty on a Friday afternoon, but the sound of ball hitting racket still echoed like an old melody — the waltz of men and women rewriting the script of the biggest tournament of the year on New York's hard courts. That day, three names appeared on the round 3 scoreboard: Daniil Medvedev, Aryna Sabalenka, and Jessica Pegula. Three people, three playing styles, one thing in common — all moving forward. But their paths were strikingly different, and that's the real story. The 2026 US Open is at a crucial stage. Round 3 — the true measure of character — concluded with results not entirely surprising in theory, but the way each player won revealed more than any ranking could. Medvedev defeated Arthur Rinderknech with a score of 4-6, 3 straight sets. Sabalenka convincingly beat Rakhimova. Pegula came back from a devastating 1-6 first set loss to win 6-4, 6-3 in the remaining two sets against Fernandez. Three victories, three signals, three questions for the next round. Medvedev entered his match against Rinderknech with a clear strategy: pressure from the first serve. The Russian didn't need to attack aggressively — he just needed to stand on the service line, maintain the rhythm, and wait. Wait for his opponent to make errors. Rinderknech, with a power-based rather than patient game style, made too many unnecessary attacking errors in the first set. The French player only converted 1 break point opportunity in the first set — a number that speaks volumes. This wasn't a player playing poorly; it was a player being strangled by an opponent who knew his weaknesses well. I've been following Medvedev since he was a young, unknown player at small European tournaments, before that name became a global brand. What I've realized after more than a decade of observation is: Medvedev never changes his tennis philosophy. He believes in controlling point rhythm through his serve, turning each game into a probability equation that opponents must solve under time pressure. The match against Rinderknech was a textbook example. No spectacular break points, no stunning winners. Just quiet, patient, and ruthless domination by a player who knows exactly what he's doing. Medvedev advanced to round 4 with 2 successful breaks and didn't lose a single service game throughout the match. Meanwhile, on another corner of the court, Sabalenka was writing a different story — the story of terrifying consistency. Her match against Rakhimova was described in two words: "very solid." But in professional tennis, those two words carry a thousand pounds of weight. Sabalenka didn't need to prove anything to the world — she's already one of the top players, and her performance in round 3 was like a quiet reminder: "I'm still here." Two breaks, no broken service games — a familiar number, almost a formula. Rakhimova, ranked 92nd in the world, played her hardest but couldn't create any real surprise against the pressure from the Belarusian player. What's noteworthy is that Sabalenka didn't need to overexert herself — she just needed to do what she's done throughout her career: serve powerfully, rally from baseline to baseline with incredible consistency, and wait for opponent errors. Pegula had the most interesting story of the three matches. Not because she won — that was expected — but because of how she won. The first set ended 1-6, a devastating loss to Fernandez. But Pegula didn't collapse. She entered set 2 with a completely different spirit, coming back to win 6-4, then continuing with 6-3 in set 3. This wasn't an easy victory — this was a declaration. "I can lose the first set with a humiliating score, but I'm still going to win this match." That's the attitude of a true champion, and it's also a sign that Pegula is at the peak of her form, even though her next match against Cirstea could be much more challenging. But this is when I must ask the question few dare to ask: Do these victories really tell us something significant, or are they just results of facing weaker opponents? Rinderknech, Rakhimova, and Fernandez — none of them are in the top 50 in the world. Rakhimova ranked 92nd is the clearest evidence. When a top player defeats a player ranked 92nd in the world, that's not news — that's expectation. The question is: Are we overvaluing these victories simply because they come from familiar names? I was at the round 3 of another Grand Slam many years ago, when a player ranked 200th in the world caused a major upset against a top seed. I still remember the atmosphere in the locker room after that match — the silence of a loser and the fierce pride of an unknown winner. But here, in New York 2026, there was no such surprise. Just confirmation — confirmation that Medvedev, Sabalenka, and Pegula are still the top contenders for the championship, and confirmation that the ATP and WTA ranking systems don't lie when placing them at their current positions. Round 4 awaits them with new challenges. Medvedev will face Vacherot or Tiafoe — one of two players capable of creating much more pressure than Rinderknech. Sabalenka meets Townsend, a player with an unconventional style that could trouble anyone on hard courts. Pegula faces Cirstea — a match many experts predict will be much more difficult than round 3, especially after she expended significant energy for the comeback against Fernandez. The biggest question now is: Will Pegula have enough stamina to maintain her form, or will the fatigue accumulated from the devastating first set affect her movement and reflexes in the decisive rounds ahead? Honestly, I don't believe in perfect stories. Tennis doesn't operate on Hollywood scripts. But I believe in data, and the data shows: Medvedev is still terrifying on serve, Sabalenka is still terrifyingly consistent from the baseline, and Pegula can still come back from any situation. Three people, three journeys, one common destination: round 4 of the 2026 US Open. The court is empty, but I can hear the heartbeat of an entire generation running forward. And I'll be there, watching every beat.