Jessica Pegula responded to her painful Washington final defeat by recovering from another slow start and beating Magdalena Fręch 3-6, 6-3, 6-2 at the National Bank Open in Toronto.
The result was encouraging, but it did not prove that all of Pegula’s problems had disappeared. Her return game became increasingly effective as the match progressed, while her second serve remained vulnerable. The performance showed mental resilience more clearly than complete technical control.
Pegula entered Toronto only two days after Alexandra Eala defeated her 4-6, 6-4, 6-0 in the rain-delayed Washington final. Eala won 10 of the final 13 games to claim her first WTA Tour singles title and become the first player representing the Philippines to achieve that milestone.
Pegula faced an uncomfortable repeat of Washington
The opening set against Fręch suggested that Pegula had not escaped the pattern that followed her through Washington.
Pegula had also lost the first set when she faced Fręch in the Washington second round. She eventually won that match 3-6, 6-3, 6-0, but she again needed time to adjust when the pair met in Toronto.
Fręch’s playing style contributed to the difficulty. She extended rallies, defended consistently and forced Pegula to create repeated attacking opportunities instead of ending points with one decisive shot.
Facing the same opponent in consecutive tournaments also created a different type of pressure. Pegula knew what Fręch would try to do, but Fręch also had recent knowledge of Pegula’s patterns.
Pegula described the rematch as a mental battle. She said she had only one day to turn around after Washington and needed to control her frustration as the Toronto match became physically demanding.
That context matters. Pegula was not simply attempting to solve Fręch’s game. She was also trying to prevent the disappointment of Washington from shaping another match.
What changed after the opening set?
Pegula did not suddenly become more aggressive on every ball. Her improvement came from applying pressure more selectively and remaining patient when Fręch extended the exchanges.
The official WTA statistics show that Pegula won 71.4 percent of her first-serve points and converted five of seven break-point opportunities. She finished with six aces and won 86 of the match’s 166 total points.
Those numbers reveal the most important difference between the early and later stages of the match. Pegula began protecting enough service points to keep the scoreboard close, then used her return game to take control.
She won eight of the final nine games, turning a competitive match into a convincing finish. The comeback closely resembled her earlier victory over Fręch in Washington, where she won the final seven games.
The similarity is both reassuring and concerning.
It is reassuring because Pegula found a solution twice against an opponent who regularly frustrates attacking players. It is concerning because she again required a full set before establishing the right balance between patience and controlled aggression.
The second serve remains the warning sign
Pegula’s Toronto victory should not hide the weakest part of her performance.
She won only 35.3 percent of the points behind her second serve and committed six double faults. Fręch created six break-point opportunities and converted three.
That weakness did not decide this match because Pegula performed much better behind her first serve and repeatedly pressured Fręch’s service games. Against a stronger returner, however, the same second-serve numbers could leave her with far less room to recover.
The Washington final provided a recent example of that danger. Once Eala began controlling the opening shots of the rallies, Pegula struggled to interrupt the momentum and lost the deciding set without winning a game.
The Toronto response therefore did not erase what happened in Washington. It showed how Pegula can prevent one difficult set from becoming an irreversible slide.
Why this comeback matters before the US Open
Pegula’s greatest positive in Toronto was not the final score. It was her ability to remain composed after another poor opening set during a physically and emotionally demanding turnaround.
A routine straight-set victory would have created fewer questions, but the comeback revealed something more useful about her current form. Pegula can still adjust during matches, win extended baseline exchanges and turn return pressure into repeated service breaks.
The remaining concern is efficiency.
Slow starts force Pegula to spend more time on court and place additional pressure on her serve. That pattern becomes riskier as the opposition improves and the North American hard-court schedule moves closer to the US Open.
Toronto offered a strong response to Washington, but not a complete reset. Pegula showed that the final-set loss to Eala had not damaged her willingness to compete through difficult moments. She also showed that her second serve and early-match execution still need attention.
The victory was evidence of resilience. Her next challenge is making sure she does not need that resilience in every round.
