Davidovich Fokina left without a coach in the middle of Roland Garros: Puerta went to Miami, the tennis player claims he blocked him
Alejandro Davidovich Fokina left Roland Garros 2026 with a defeat in terms of the result, but also with a much more unpleasant story off the court. After being eliminated in the second round, the Spanish tennis player publicly said that coach Mariano Puerta had abandoned him in the middle of the tournament, left Paris for Miami without speaking to the rest of the team, and then blocked him and his wife. The case quickly grew into one of the most unusual behind-the-scenes episodes of this year’s French Open because it was not only about ending their cooperation, but about the way in which, according to the player, it happened during a Grand Slam tournament.
According to reports by the Associated Press and Reuters, after his defeat to Argentina’s Thiago Agustín Tirante in the second round, Davidovich Fokina explained that everything happened after his exhausting first-round match against Damir Džumhur. The Spaniard won that encounter in five sets, and then, as he told journalists in Paris, had lunch with Puerta and the rest of the team. According to that version of events, Puerta told him that he was not feeling well and that he was going back to the hotel. A few hours later, Davidovich Fokina received a message in which the coach wrote that he would not continue their cooperation.
A message after the first round and a departure without speaking to the team
Davidovich Fokina claimed that Puerta did not directly explain his decision to the other members of the team. According to a Reuters report carried by Channel NewsAsia, the Spanish tennis player said that his then coach did not say anything to anyone, but took a flight and traveled to Miami. The Associated Press states that after the defeat to Tirante, Davidovich Fokina said he had not expected such a split to happen in the middle of the tournament, especially after winning the first round and at a moment when the player needed stability in preparing for the next match.
According to the tennis player, he was additionally hurt by the fact that Puerta allegedly blocked him and his wife. Davidovich Fokina told journalists that he later heard the Argentine had done similar things to other players he had worked with, but that claim has not yet been independently confirmed. In his remarks after the match, the Spaniard stressed that he would not pursue Puerta or turn it into a personal confrontation, but he openly said that he felt betrayed as a person and as a player. Such a statement resonated especially strongly because in professional tennis the player-coach relationship is often based on trust, discretion, and daily communication.
At the same time, the Spaniard rejected claims that there had been a major argument between him and Puerta. According to The Guardian, Davidovich Fokina said that after lunch the coach explained that he was feeling unwell and went to the hotel, and then sent him a message saying he would not continue. In doing so, he tried to clarify the difference between a professional disagreement and a sudden departure, because in the first reactions on social media and in part of the media there had been mention of the possibility of a serious conflict. According to the available information, it has not been officially confirmed that there was an argument immediately preceding the coach’s departure.
The defeat to Tirante was overshadowed by the end of the cooperation
The sporting part of the story was difficult enough even without the off-court circumstances. Davidovich Fokina, the 23rd seed in Paris, lost in the second round to Thiago Agustín Tirante 4:6, 7:6, 6:1, 6:3. The result was confirmed by the official Roland Garros report and several agency sources, and for the Spaniard it meant an early end to a tournament where he had expected at least a calmer continuation after an exhausting start. After winning the first set, he failed to maintain his level of play, and the Argentine tennis player took control in the third and fourth sets.
Davidovich Fokina did not want to reduce the entire defeat to the coach’s departure, but he admitted that the situation could have affected him at least subconsciously. According to reports from Paris, he also spoke about his physical condition after the first round and the fact that he had not had ideal preparation for best-of-five-set matches. Such circumstances do not change the sporting result, but they help explain why the story about the coach took up space in the media. Instead of the usual analysis of tactics and form, the press conference turned into an explanation of the end of a cooperation that happened during the tournament.
This year’s Roland Garros, according to The Guardian’s report from Paris, was also marked by unusually demanding weather, with very high temperatures affecting several matches. On the same day that the Davidovich Fokina case was discussed, the case of Jakub Menšík also drew particular attention, after he suffered serious cramps following an almost five-hour victory in the second round and had to receive assistance. That context does not explain Puerta’s departure, but it shows how demanding the conditions at Grand Slam tournaments become when a player is simultaneously dealing with physical effort, the pressure of results, and instability within his own team.
Puerta rejected the criticism and said falsehoods were being spread about him
Mariano Puerta later reacted to the criticism. According to the Spanish newspaper AS, the Argentine coach posted a message on social media in which he sharply rejected what he considers attacks against him and claimed that falsehoods were being spread about him. In his statement, according to the available reports, he did not answer in detail every claim made by Davidovich Fokina, but he made it clear that he did not accept the way his departure from the team had been portrayed. The case thus received another side as well, although key circumstances, such as the exact content of the message to the player and the reasons for leaving, have not been fully clarified.
AS reported that Puerta, in his reaction, emphasized his own work and commitment, using a very sharp tone toward the criticism. Such a reaction further increased media attention because the dispute from the locker room moved into the public sphere. In professional sport, splits between players and coaches are not rare, but they are unusual when they happen during a Grand Slam tournament, without a joint explanation and with mutual accusations. That is precisely why the case did not remain merely a note about a change in the coaching staff, but became a topic about professional relationships and the limits of responsibility in an individual sport.
For now, there is no official joint statement from Davidovich Fokina and Puerta that would clarify all the details. The available information is mostly based on the player’s statements after the match, reports by accredited media from Paris, and Puerta’s subsequent reaction on social media, which was carried by Spanish media. That means that part of the events, especially the motives for the departure and the communication within the team, remains subject to different interpretations. What is certain is only that the cooperation, at least in the form in which it existed at the beginning of Roland Garros, no longer functions.
A former Roland Garros finalist with a controversial past
Mariano Puerta is not an unknown name in Paris. Roland Garros’s official profile recalls that the Argentine was a finalist at the tournament in 2005, when he lost in the final to Rafael Nadal. That final remained important in the history of the tournament because Nadal then won the first of his titles in Paris and began one of the most dominant stories in tennis history. Puerta was at that moment one of the most recognizable South American clay-court players, but his playing career soon afterward took a controversial turn.
The Associated Press states that Puerta was suspended during his playing career in two separate doping cases. After the 2005 Roland Garros final, he tested positive for etilefrine, a banned stimulant, for which he was initially given a long suspension, later reduced. AP also recalls that in 2020 Puerta admitted in an interview with Argentina’s La Nación that he had earlier given a false version of the explanation in order to have his punishment reduced. Those details do not prove anything about the current split with Davidovich Fokina, but they explain why Puerta’s name in the tennis world is often followed with additional attention.
As a coach, Puerta has worked with several players in recent years, and at the beginning of 2026 he joined Davidovich Fokina’s team after the Spaniard sought a new step forward. According to Tennis Temple reports from January, Davidovich Fokina was at that moment the world No. 14 and had a season behind him in which he played several finals but did not win a title. Puerta’s appointment was meant to help in an attempt to stabilize results and further develop his game at the highest level. Only a few months later, the cooperation ended in a way that became a bigger story than the result itself in Paris.
Davidovich Fokina seeks stability after a new upheaval
Davidovich Fokina has for years been considered an exceptionally talented but inconsistent player in terms of results. Roland Garros’s official profile describes him as a complete and very gifted tennis player who reached the final of the Masters in Monte Carlo in 2022, while the ATP lists him as a player who began his professional career in 2017 and has long moved close to the highest company. Still, in Paris 2026, he failed to turn his seeded status into a deeper run. A second-round exit would have been disappointing in itself, but the circumstances with the coach additionally highlighted the question of continuity in his career.
According to Spanish media, Davidovich Fokina is now continuing to work with Pepo Clavet, one of the coaches mentioned in his team for the rest of the season. AS and Cadena SER reported that after Roland Garros he is turning to a period of preparation for the grass-court season, during which his schedule of appearances before Wimbledon will also be assessed. Such a transition is not simple even in normal circumstances because it requires a quick adjustment from Parisian clay to grass courts. When a change in the professional environment is added to that, the margin for error becomes even smaller.
For a player who is still seeking his first major title and a stable step toward the top, such an end to cooperation may have both short-term and long-term consequences. In the short term, Davidovich Fokina must continue the season without the coach with whom he had planned his appearance in Paris. In the long term, the question opens again of whether he can build around himself a more lasting team that will follow him through the demanding parts of the season. In modern tennis, a coach is not only a person who gives tactical instructions, but also someone who manages the rhythm of training, psychological preparation, and daily organization at tournaments.
An unpleasant episode in a sport where trust is crucial
The case of Davidovich Fokina and Puerta shows how fragile a relationship can be in an individual sport, even when from the outside it appears to be only a professional engagement. A tennis player formally competes alone in a tournament, but behind every match there is a small group of people taking care of training, recovery, tactics, nutrition, scheduling, and communication. When a coach leaves a tournament in the middle of competition, especially at a Grand Slam, the consequences are not only technical. The player is left without the person who participated in the preparation, but also without part of the routine that in elite sport is often just as important as the tactics themselves.
According to the available information, Davidovich Fokina did not try to justify the defeat solely by Puerta’s departure. He emphasized that the decision of an adult person was up to the coach and that he himself had to move on. Still, the fact that he spoke publicly about being blocked, about the departure to Miami, and about the lack of communication with the rest of the team shows that he believed a professional line had been crossed. Puerta, on the other hand, publicly said that he did not agree with the portrayal of events and that the claims against him were inaccurate, so the final picture remained divided between two versions.
Roland Garros continues without Davidovich Fokina, and his season enters a new phase with the question of who will guide him through the next tournaments. In sporting terms, the most important answer will have to be given on the court, already in the transition toward the grass-court part of the season. In the public sense, however, the case with Puerta will be remembered as a rare example of an open breakdown of cooperation in the middle of one of the four biggest tournaments in tennis. Until a fuller explanation from both sides appears, the fact remains that one professional relationship ended suddenly, publicly, and with damage to the reputation of everyone involved.
Sources:
- Associated Press / Sportsnet – statements by Alejandro Davidovich Fokina after the defeat, the course of events with Mariano Puerta, and information about Puerta’s playing past (link)
- Reuters / Channel NewsAsia – report from Paris on Mariano Puerta’s departure, the message to the player, and the trip to Miami (link)
- The Guardian – context of Roland Garros 2026, statements from the press conference, and conditions at the tournament (link)
- AS – reports on Davidovich Fokina’s statements, Mariano Puerta’s reaction, and the continuation of work with Pepo Clavet (link)
- Roland Garros – official profile of Alejandro Davidovich Fokina and basic information about the player (link)
- ATP Tour – official player profile and career information for Alejandro Davidovich Fokina (link)