American Male Grand Slam Dry Spell Is Not Taylor Fritz's Burden to Bear

I have a few thoughts regarding that remarks made by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler after the Serbian champion's victory over the American player during the US Open quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is American, the commentator is American – and athletic competitions often encourage patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Rather, he brought up the continued drought of US male players at grand slam tournaments: not one of them has won a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the competition.

We all love a storyline, myself included. But come on. Even if the American had beaten Djokovic for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was looming in the next round, whom Fritz has never defeated in an competitive encounter. And had he someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom Fritz had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the previous seven grand slams (and Alcaraz went on to defeat a tired Serbian in the subsequent match). He said in press following his defeat that he in fact preferred his path, because it offered the chance to beat the three best players in the world back-to-back. He is well justified to aim for 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 drought of US winners in mind?

The American, 28, is ranked number four in the world entering the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has won his last six matches over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that right now, that is as far as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a chasm of ranking points away. His elite delivery and powerful power on both forehand and reverse side are more than adequate to defeat most rivals on the professional circuit. Against the select few once-in-a-lifetime players, though, he is frequently overmatched. The past few years has seen the interesting emergence of lanky, towering players who can nevertheless move around with the alarming quickness and fluidity of much shorter players. He is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His movement is rigid, 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 drop shot against him is typically a safe bet. That acts as a quite severe restriction on his potential.

The American has achieved a several significant, improbable improvements over the years. Early on of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was sniffing the elite ten. The previous season, he suddenly surged up to fourth place – and maintained the spot. But the next leap, mixing it up with and defeating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and even a declining Djokovic, is the highest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the ongoing drought of American men lifting grand slams when he had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply excessive and the respect for the difficulty of the task insufficient.

The American's performance in that very quarter-final ought to have been enough of an indication. The Serbian triumphed in four sets, a win that only seemed tenuous for moments towards the very end, when the American had saved a few match points and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair looked well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American creating plenty of chances to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic saved break point after service break opportunity, prolonging the run to the point of agony. When he eventually did claim a single of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he immediately produced a horrendous service game to lose his own serve once more; the Serbian had lulled him into a skirmish secondary to the real battle and compelled him to use excessive energy to prevail. Down match points in the final game, Fritz’s first serve sailed to the sky. He prolonged the match twice on his second serve, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a collapse, I didn’t think, only a result of needing to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The match was quite compelling evidence that the American is insufficiently skilled to defeat any version of Djokovic, that was defeated by the Spaniard in the next round and never especially appeared like he believed he could triumph. This is absolutely acceptable – Djokovic is the best player ever, and might not be at the height of his physical powers anymore, but has developed enough experience and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the decline. The issue is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was yet to done anything that indicated he would.

Fritz is an asset to the tour nonetheless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in media sessions, more so than almost everyone on the men's tour except for the Russian star, willing to not just express how he feels or the strategy he believed determined a contest, but explain it. That he ought to bear the brunt of the blame for America failing to spawn a male major champion since the last American titlist feels unjust. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, maybe they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely think about it indefinitely if I fail to do it,” the American told a journalist in June of winning a grand slam. I hope he realizes that he’s not a failure if he does not achieve that goal, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is in fact extremely unlikely for all other players. {