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

I have some thoughts regarding the comments delivered by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz in the New York major quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is American, the commentator is American – and sports frequently encourage nationalism. Some disappointment was appropriate. Rather, he brought up the ongoing absence of American men at the majors: not one of them had lifted a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the tournament.

We all love a storyline, me too. But come on. Suppose the American had beaten Djokovic for the first time, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was looming in the next round, whom Fritz has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And if he’d somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also divided the previous seven major titles (plus Alcaraz went on to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually liked his draw, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the three best competitors in the sport back-to-back. Fritz is more than within his right to aim for the achievement; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But going into that Djokovic quarter-final what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions on the brain?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the world starting this week’s year-end championships and has won his last six encounters over third-ranked the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But evidently that at present, that’s as far as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. Fritz’s top-class serve and concussive strength on each forehand and reverse side are sufficiently enough to defeat most rivals on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of generational talents, though, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The past few seasons has seen the interesting rise of tall, gangly players who can nevertheless cover the court with the alarming speed and fluidity of smaller men. He is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His movement is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he seldom steal a point that the other player was dictating, and hitting a soft shot versus him is usually a reliable tactic. That acts as a pretty severe limitation on his upside.

Fritz has achieved a several significant, unexpected advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the lower end of the top 30. Two years later, he was sniffing the elite ten. The previous season, he suddenly surged to fourth place – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and defeating legendary figures like Alcaraz, Sinner, and even a declining Serbian, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the continuing slump of US male players lifting major titles when he had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just excessive and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge insufficient.

The American's performance in that very last eight match ought to have been sufficient of an indication. The Serbian won in four sets, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the very end, when the American had saved a couple match points and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with the American earning numerous opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But the champion saved break point after break point, prolonging the run to the point of agony. When Fritz eventually did convert one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a terrible game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had lulled him into a skirmish secondary to the main contest and compelled him to use far too much effort to win it. Facing match points in the last game, Fritz’s first serve sailed to heaven. He prolonged the match twice on his second serve, but finally double-faulted. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, just a result of having to hit an excessive number of weaker deliveries.

The match was fairly ironclad evidence that Fritz is not good enough to beat any version of Djokovic, who was defeated by the Spaniard in the next round and never particularly appeared like he thought he could win. This is perfectly fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the height of his athletic abilities anymore, but has acquired sufficient knowledge and strategic intelligence to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is those who were anticipating Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to done anything that indicated he could.

The American is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in press conferences, exceeding virtually anyone on the ATP aside from the Russian star, prepared to not only express his emotions or the strategy he believed determined a contest, but explain it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for America failing to produce a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unjust. (Now that Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, perhaps they can divide that burden.)

“I’d probably dwell on it forever if I fail to do it,” the American informed an interviewer in the summer of winning a grand slam. I hope he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he doesn’t fulfill that goal, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is actually highly improbable for everybody else. {