Politics

Masters 1000 in Paris: Ben Shelton defeats Luca Van Assche in semi-final

Luca Van Assche was eliminated by Ben Shelton in his first Masters 1000 semi-final in Paris, despite a competitive match.

7 November 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Masters 1000 in Paris: Ben Shelton defeats Luca Van Assche in semi-final — Photo: Hameltion · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0

Luca Van Assche, the last French player in contention, was eliminated in the semi-finals of the Masters 1000 in Paris on Saturday by American Ben Shelton. The match ended with a score of 5-7, 6-3, 6-4, bringing an end to Van Assche's run in the tournament.

The clash was marked by tense moments, with Van Assche displaying solid play; however, Shelton, ranked number four in the world, asserted his status. Both players had previously managed to qualify for this stage of the tournament, reflecting their established performances.

Ben Shelton is now preparing to face Carlos Alcaraz in the final. Alcaraz won his own semi-final match against Casper Ruud, solidifying his position as a serious contender in the tournament.

The event has sparked varied reactions, both for Van Assche, who impressed with his journey, and for Shelton, who continues to confirm his status among the elite in world tennis.

Van Assche, at just 22 years old, has demonstrated promising potential throughout the competition, having previously been ranked the number one junior player in the world. His ambition was palpable before facing Shelton, but he was unable to continue his dream of reaching the final.

Despite his elimination, Van Assche has gained recognition and received praise from former players and spectators, attesting to his impact on the tournament.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.