Carlos Alcaraz’s rollicking start to the 2026 season, where he surged to a 17-0 record with titles at the Australian Open and Qatar, came to a halt earlier this month as he suffered back-to-back setbacks. After a semifinal loss to Daniil Medvedev at Indian Wells, the Spaniard was handed a shock defeat by Sebastian Korda in the third round of the Miami Open last Monday.
Most experts have downplayed the losses, attributing them to mental fatigue, a phase Alcaraz is expected to overcome ahead of the crucial clay-court swing, beginning with the Monte-Carlo Masters in early April. That fatigue was visible during the Korda loss, where the Murcian let out a cry of despair after being broken early in the second set and appeared unusually subdued in the post-match press conference.
However, the defeats point to something deeper than fatigue alone. A clear tactical pattern has emerged in the way both Medvedev and Korda constructed their wins, a blueprint that was also evident when Arthur Rinderknech took a set off Alcaraz in Indian Wells.
Here’s what Medvedev and Korda executed against Alcaraz
High-attacking game: Alcaraz thrives on controlling rallies from the baseline, building pressure through sustained aggression. To counter that, both Medvedev and Korda flipped the script by increasing their attacking output, even at the cost of errors. According to Tennis Viz, Medvedev played 30% attacking shots in Indian Wells compared to Alcaraz’s 22%, while Korda recorded 34% in Miami against Alcaraz’s 21%. For Medvedev, this was particularly striking given his natural defensive style. He stepped out of his comfort zone, using aggressive backhands to target Alcaraz’s forehand while injecting pace into rallies, prompting Alcaraz to admit: “I’ve never seen him play like that.”
Approaching the net: Another key shift came in net play. Medvedev, who rarely ventures forward, matched Alcaraz with 22 net points in Indian Wells. Korda took it even further, approaching the net 34 times, nearly three times more than Alcaraz’s 12. While Alcaraz had the superior success rate at the net (92%), Korda still won 20 points there, nine more than the Spaniard. The intent was clear: disrupt rhythm, shorten rallies, and force Alcaraz into uncomfortable decision-making. This aggressive net play also had a psychological effect. It broke Alcaraz’s rhythm, clouded his shot selection, and created visible frustration, particularly when playing from behind.
Controlling the second serve: Alcaraz is among the best second-serve returners on tour, with a success rate of 53.4% over the last 52 weeks. Yet, both Medvedev and Korda neutralised this strength. Against Korda, Alcaraz’s return success dropped to 42% compared to Korda’s 47%. Against Medvedev, the Russian posted a striking 74% compared to Alcaraz’s 57%.
The key was intent. Neither player played safe on second serve, instead, they prioritised depth and pressure, even at the risk of double faults (none were recorded). The aim was to push Alcaraz into defensive return positions. Tennis Viz data further underlines this. Korda’s second-serve effectiveness stood at 15.6%, six points higher than Alcaraz’s, while the Spaniard was forced into defensive returns on 29% of occasions compared to 15% for Korda. Medvedev, meanwhile, applied pressure even with his first serve, recording 74% effectiveness and forcing defensive returns 18.4% of the time.
Flat backhands: Another effective weapon. By using low-revolution shots, both opponents forced Alcaraz to hit from a lower contact point, disrupting his preferred waist-height strike zone and limiting his ability to unleash his inside-out forehand. This is a tactic that Jannik Sinner has also used successfully in their past encounters.
Inside-court positioning: Perhaps the most decisive tactical adjustment. Both Medvedev and Korda consistently stepped inside the baseline, taking the ball early and denying Alcaraz time to set up. By hitting on the rise, they rushed his decision-making and weakened his power game. On average, both players hit 28% of their shots from inside the court, a figure they increased by 10% specifically against Alcaraz.
While fatigue has been cited as a factor, these defeats highlight a growing tactical blueprint to challenge Alcaraz. Heading into the clay-court swing, where he will be defending over 4,000 ranking points with the world No. 1 spot under threat, Alcaraz and his team will need to address these patterns quickly. Because this is no longer just about form. It’s about opponents finding a way to systematically break his game.
