US Male Grand Slam Dry Spell Isn't Fritz's Responsibility to Bear

I have some opinions regarding the remarks delivered by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler after the Serbian champion's victory over Taylor Fritz during the US Open quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is American, Fowler is from the US – and athletic competitions often lend themselves to nationalism. Some letdown would have been understandable. Instead, he brought up the continued absence of US male players at the majors: not one of them had lifted a trophy since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the competition.

Everyone enjoy a narrative, myself included. But come on. Even if the American had beaten Djokovic for the first time, force of nature the Spanish star was waiting in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And if he’d somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz proceeded to thrash a fatigued Djokovic in the subsequent match). He stated in post-match interviews following his defeat that he in fact preferred his path, because it offered the chance to beat the three best players in the sport back-to-back. He is well justified to aspire to the achievement; an competitor is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian last eight match what other person in their right mind had the lack of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is placed number four in the world starting this week’s ATP World Tour Finals and has secured his previous six encounters over third-ranked the German with increasing ease. It's likely he could take that spot for himself in the future. But evidently that right now, that’s as far as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. His elite serve and concussive strength on both front side and backhand are sufficiently enough to defeat the majority of rivals on the professional circuit. Against the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, however, he is often helpless. The past few seasons has witnessed the curious emergence of tall, gangly athletes who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of smaller players. He is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a soft shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite severe limitation on his potential.

The American has made a number of significant, improbable improvements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. Two years after, he was sniffing the elite ten. The previous season, he suddenly exploded up to fourth place – and held the position. But the subsequent step, competing against and defeating legendary figures like Alcaraz, Sinner, and even a aging Djokovic, is the highest of all. What could Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the continuing slump of American men winning major titles when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply excessive and the respect for the difficulty of the challenge too little.

Fritz’s performance in that very quarter-final should have been sufficient of an sign. Djokovic won in four rounds, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a few championship opportunities and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair appeared evenly matched during the exchanges, with Fritz creating plenty of opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic saved break point after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the point of agony. When Fritz eventually did convert a single of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a horrendous service game to lose his own serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the main contest and forced him to use far too much effort to prevail. Down set points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery sailed to the sky. He extended the match twice on his second serve, but finally double-faulted. It wasn’t a choke, in my opinion, only a result of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was quite compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any form of the Serbian, that was defeated by the Spaniard in the following match and did not particularly appeared like he believed he could triumph. This is perfectly fine – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has developed sufficient experience and tactical know-how to make up for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is those who were expecting Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that indicated he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the circuit regardless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in media sessions, more so than virtually anyone on the men's tour except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just express how he feels or the strategy he felt decided a match, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for America not produce a male major champion since Andy Roddick seems unjust. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the rankings, perhaps they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely dwell on it indefinitely if I fail to do it,” the American told a journalist in June of winning a major. It is hoped he understands that he’s not a failure if he does not achieve that objective, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is actually highly improbable for all other players. {