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

I have a few opinions regarding that comments delivered by the sports network broadcaster a well-known announcer after Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz in the New York major last eight. Consider – Fritz is the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions often encourage patriotic sentiment. A little bit of disappointment would have been appropriate. Rather, he brought up the ongoing absence of US male players at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a trophy since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the tournament.

We all love a storyline, myself included. But really. Even if Fritz had beaten Djokovic for the first time, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the following match, whom Fritz has never defeated in an official match. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom Fritz had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. The two young stars had also divided the last seven grand slams (and the Spaniard went on to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews after the loss that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the top three competitors in the sport back-to-back. Fritz is more than justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian last eight match who else in their right mind had the drought of US winners on the brain?

Fritz, twenty-eight, is placed fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has secured his previous six encounters over third-ranked Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the future. But evidently that at present, that is as high as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a chasm of ranking points away. His top-class serve and concussive strength on each forehand and reverse side are sufficiently adequate to dispose of the majority of rivals on the professional circuit. When facing the select few generational talents, however, he is often overmatched. The past few seasons has seen the interesting rise of tall, gangly athletes who can nonetheless move around with the surprising quickness and fluidity of much shorter men. He is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his legs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was controlling, and playing a soft shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That serves as a pretty severe restriction on his potential.

The American has achieved a several significant, improbable improvements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the bottom 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 subsequent step, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and even a declining Serbian, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the ongoing drought of American men winning grand slams when he had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

The American's play in that very quarter-final should have been sufficient of an sign. Djokovic triumphed in four rounds, a win that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when the American had saved a couple match points and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The pair appeared evenly matched during the exchanges, with the American earning numerous chances to win the opponent's serve. But the champion rescued break point after break point, prolonging the run to the point of frustration. When Fritz finally did claim a single of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately produced a terrible service game to drop serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a battle secondary to the main contest and compelled him to expend far too much effort to win it. Down set points in the final game, his first serve floated to heaven. He extended the contest two times on his second serve, but finally double-faulted. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, just a result of needing to hit too many second serves.

The match was quite ironclad proof that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to defeat any form of Djokovic, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially seem like he thought he could win. This is perfectly acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his athletic abilities anymore, but has developed enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for a significant portion of the drop-off. The issue is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to done anything that indicated he could.

The American is an asset to the circuit regardless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in media sessions, exceeding virtually anyone on the men's tour except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just say his emotions or the tactic he believed decided a contest, but explain it. That he should bear the brunt of the blame for the United States failing to spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, maybe they can share that burden.)

“I’d probably dwell on it forever if I don’t accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in June of claiming a grand slam. I hope he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not achieve that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is actually highly improbable for everybody else. {