Mateska’s 31 kills drive UW past Wisconsin in five-set road upset

Rain City Sports editorial desk | October 24, 2026 | Game played October 23.

A road win with substance

No. 21 Washington beat No. 6 Wisconsin 3–2 on Friday, October 23, at the Wisconsin Field House in Madison. Simona Mateska led the Huskies with 31 kills as Washington won 20–25, 27–25, 21–25, 25–18, 18–16 and improved to 15–3 overall and 6–3 in the Big Ten.

The result ended Wisconsin’s unbeaten home record this season. It also gave Washington a response to its previous loss to Indiana: the Huskies twice fell behind in sets and still found the execution needed to finish an extended fifth.

Staying in the match, then changing it

Washington’s official account identifies the second set as an early turning point. The Huskies saved four set points before winning 27–25, keeping the match level instead of allowing Wisconsin a two-set cushion. The Badgers regained the advantage in the third, leaving Washington another set from defeat.

The official box score shows how strongly UW answered. Washington hit .500 in the fourth set, recording 19 kills against one attack error on 36 attempts. That cleaner attacking stretch produced a 25–18 win and forced the deciding set. Andrea Fabikovicova eventually ended the fifth with an ace on Washington’s fifth match point.

Analysis: the fourth set is an especially useful model for the next opponent. The Huskies did more than extend rallies and hope for mistakes; they converted their own swings with very few errors. Reproducing that balance is more sustainable than expecting every close set to end in their favor.

Mateska’s night and the supporting work

Mateska hit .424 on 59 attempts. Fabikovicova finished with 55 assists, while Kylie Kleckner contributed 13 kills and 18 digs. Kaitlyn Nguyen recorded 23 digs. Those contributions show the setting and back-row work behind a night led by one exceptional attacking total.

Wisconsin still finished ahead in several aggregate measures: 71 kills to Washington’s 68, a .283 hitting percentage against .271, and 10 blocks against six. Both teams served eight aces. Analysis: the final score therefore reflects when Washington won points, rather than overwhelming superiority across the entire match. The comeback should build confidence without hiding the narrow margins.

The documented coaching response

In UW’s postmatch report, Leslie Gabriel emphasized disciplined execution and players staying with their assignments. She also praised the outside hitters’ willingness to take important swings. Her assessment connects the result to repeatable decisions under pressure, rather than treating Mateska’s total as the entire explanation.

Wisconsin’s report credited Decelise Champion with 20 kills and Audrey Flanagan with 15. Badgers coach Kelly Sheffield acknowledged that Washington played well and won the crucial points. Those opposing accounts agree on a competitive match decided at the edges; they do not support describing the win as an easy upset.

What needs to carry into Minnesota

Analysis: Washington’s next challenge is to make its best stretches appear earlier and more often. Saving set points and recovering from a 2–1 deficit is valuable evidence of resilience, but it is an expensive route through a weekend of ranked road opponents. A steadier start would give the offense more room to operate.

The Huskies visit No. 20 Minnesota on Sunday, October 25, at 11 a.m. Pacific, with the match scheduled for Big Ten Network. The immediate question is whether UW can carry its serving pressure, defensive persistence and fourth-set efficiency into another demanding road environment. Friday raised the standard for what this group can accomplish; Sunday tests how reliably it can reach it.

Sources

• Washington Athletics: official Wisconsin recap and Gabriel comments (checked 2026-10-24)
• Washington Athletics: official Wisconsin box score (checked 2026-10-24)
• Wisconsin Athletics: official opponent recap and coaching comments (checked 2026-10-24)

Analysis and recommendations are the editorial desk’s interpretation. Reporting and attributed perspectives are linked above. Information is current as of the publication date.