US Men's Grand Slam Drought Is Not Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Bear

I have a few thoughts regarding the remarks delivered by the sports network broadcaster a well-known announcer after the Serbian champion's victory over Taylor Fritz in the New York major last eight. Look – the athlete represents American, the commentator is American – and sports often encourage patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Instead, he brought up the continued absence of American men at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the tournament.

We all enjoy a narrative, myself included. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom the American had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the last seven grand slams (and the Spaniard proceeded to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the next round). Fritz said in press following his defeat that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the top three players in the world in succession. Fritz is well justified to aspire to the achievement; an athlete is supposed to believe in themselves. But going into that Serbian quarter-final who else sensibly had the lack of US winners in mind?

The American, twenty-eight, is ranked fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming year-end championships and has secured his last six matches over third-ranked the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the future. But it’s clear that right now, that’s as far as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard lie a vast gap of ranking points away. His top-class delivery and powerful power on each forehand and backhand are more than enough to dispose of the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the select few generational talents, though, Fritz is often helpless. The last several years has seen the curious rise of lanky, towering players who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and grace of much shorter players. He is six-foot-five and looks it. His movement is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a drop shot against him is usually a safe bet. That serves as a quite harsh limitation on his potential.

The American has achieved a number of dramatic, improbable improvements over the years. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. 24 months after, he was approaching the top 10. Last year, he unexpectedly surged up to No 4 – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a aging Djokovic, is the highest of all. What could Fowler thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the ongoing slump of US male players lifting major titles when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just excessive and the respect for the difficulty of the task too little.

Fritz’s performance in that very quarter-final should have been sufficient of an indication. The Serbian triumphed in four sets, a victory that only seemed tenuous for moments towards the very end, when Fritz had saved a couple championship opportunities and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair appeared well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American earning plenty of chances to break. But Djokovic rescued break point after service break opportunity, prolonging the run to the point of agony. When he finally did claim one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a horrendous game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and forced him to use excessive energy to prevail. Facing set points in the last game, Fritz’s primary delivery floated to heaven. He prolonged the match twice on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a choke, I didn’t think, only a consequence of needing to hit too many second serves.

The match was fairly ironclad evidence that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to beat any version of the Serbian, who lost to the Spaniard in the next round and never especially appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his athletic abilities now, but has developed sufficient experience and tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is the individuals who were expecting the American to prevail, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was had not accomplished anything that indicated he could.

The American is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in media sessions, more so than almost everyone on the ATP aside from Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not only express his emotions or the strategy he believed determined a contest, but clarify it. That he ought to bear the brunt of the responsibility for America not spawn a male major champion since Andy Roddick feels unfair. (Now that Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, maybe they can share that load.)

“I’d probably think about it forever if I fail to do it,” Fritz told a journalist in June of winning a grand slam. It is hoped he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not achieve that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable reign is actually highly unlikely for everybody else. {