American Male Grand Slam Drought Isn't Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I have some thoughts regarding the remarks delivered by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following Novak Djokovic's victory over Taylor Fritz in the US Open last eight. Look – the athlete represents American, the commentator is from the US – and athletic competitions frequently lend themselves to nationalism. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Instead, Fowler invoked the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: not one of them has won a trophy since Andy Roddick in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the tournament.

Everyone enjoy a narrative, myself included. But come on. Suppose the American had beaten the legend for the first time, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the next round, who he has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And if he’d somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom Fritz had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also divided the previous seven major titles (and the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He said in post-match interviews after the loss that he actually liked his path, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the three best players in the world back-to-back. Fritz is more than within his right to aspire to the accomplishment; 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, 28, is placed number four in the global rankings starting the upcoming year-end championships and has secured his last six encounters over third-ranked the German with growing comfort. It's likely he might claim that position for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that right now, that is as high as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a chasm of ranking points away. His top-class delivery and concussive power on both front side and reverse side are sufficiently enough to defeat most rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the select few once-in-a-lifetime players, though, he is often helpless. The past few seasons has seen the interesting rise of lanky, towering players who can nonetheless move around with the alarming speed and grace of smaller players. He is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was controlling, and playing a drop shot against him is typically a safe bet. That serves as a quite severe restriction on his potential.

Fritz has achieved a several dramatic, improbable advancements throughout his career. Early on of the decade, he was circling the lower end of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly exploded to fourth place – and maintained the position. But the next leap, competing against and defeating all-time-greats like Alcaraz, Sinner, and including a aging Serbian, is the toughest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a serious threat to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the continuing slump of US male players lifting grand slams when he had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply too much and the appreciation for the difficulty of the task insufficient.

The American's performance in that very quarter-final should have been enough of an indication. Djokovic won in four sets, a victory that only seemed uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a couple match points and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The pair looked evenly matched during the rallies, with Fritz earning plenty of chances to break. But the champion saved break point after break point, prolonging the streak to the brink of agony. When Fritz eventually did claim a single of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately played a horrendous service game to drop serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the main contest and forced him to use far too much energy to prevail. Down match points in the final game, Fritz’s first serve floated to the sky. He extended the match twice on his second serve, but finally double-faulted. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, just a result of having to hit too many second serves.

The match was quite compelling proof that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to beat any version of the Serbian, that lost to the Spaniard in the next round and never especially seem like he believed he could win. This is perfectly fine – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has developed sufficient experience and tactical know-how to compensate for quite a bit of the drop-off. The issue is those who were expecting Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to achieve that, when he was yet to done anything that suggested he would.

The American is an asset to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a patient, thoughtful voice in media sessions, more so than almost anyone on the ATP except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not only say how he feels or the strategy he felt determined a contest, but clarify it. That he ought to bear the brunt of the responsibility for America failing to spawn a male major champion since Andy Roddick seems unjust. (Now that the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, perhaps they can divide that load.)

“I would likely dwell on it indefinitely if I don’t accomplish it,” Fritz told an interviewer in June of claiming a major. It is hoped he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that objective, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable reign is in fact highly unlikely for all other players. {