US Male Grand Slam Drought Isn't Taylor Fritz's Burden to Carry

I possess a few opinions about the comments made by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's win over the American player in the New York major last eight. Consider – Fritz is American, the commentator is from the US – and sports often encourage nationalism. Some disappointment would have been understandable. Instead, he invoked the ongoing drought of US male players at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the competition.

Everyone love a storyline, myself included. But really. Even if the American defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature the Spanish star was looming in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom the American had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also split the previous seven major titles (and Alcaraz proceeded to defeat a tired Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews after the loss that he actually preferred his path, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the top three players in the world in succession. He is well within his right to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is supposed to believe in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final what other person sensibly had the lack of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is ranked number four in the world starting this week’s year-end championships and has secured his previous six matches over third-ranked Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. It's likely he could claim that position for himself in the future. But evidently that right now, that’s as high as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a chasm of ranking points away. Fritz’s top-class serve and powerful strength on both forehand and reverse side are more than adequate to dispose of most opponents on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of generational talents, though, he is often overmatched. The past few years has witnessed the curious rise of tall, gangly athletes who can nevertheless move around with the alarming quickness and fluidity of smaller players. Fritz is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His movement is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was controlling, and hitting a soft shot against him is typically a safe bet. That serves as a quite harsh restriction on his potential.

The American has made a several significant, unexpected improvements over the years. Early on of the ten-year period, he was hovering around the bottom of the world's best thirty. Two years later, he was approaching the elite ten. The previous season, he suddenly surged to fourth place – and maintained the position. But the subsequent step, mixing it up with and beating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What could the commentator have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the ongoing slump of US male players winning major titles when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just excessive and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task too little.

The American's performance in that exact last eight match ought to have been enough of an indication. Djokovic won in four sets, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when the American had survived a couple match points and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The pair looked well-balanced during the rallies, with Fritz earning plenty of opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic rescued break point after service break opportunity, prolonging the streak to the brink of agony. When he finally did claim one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a horrendous service game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to expend far too much energy to prevail. Facing set points in the final game, Fritz’s first serve floated to the sky. He prolonged the contest two times on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, just a consequence of having to hit too many second serves.

The match was fairly ironclad proof that Fritz is not good enough to beat any form of the Serbian, that lost to Alcaraz in the next round and never particularly appeared like he believed he could triumph. This is absolutely acceptable – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the peak of his athletic abilities now, but has acquired sufficient knowledge and tactical know-how to compensate for a significant portion of the drop-off. The issue is those who were expecting Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that suggested he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the tour nonetheless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in press conferences, exceeding virtually everyone on the men's tour aside from Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just say how he feels or the tactic he believed determined a match, but clarify it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the United States not spawn a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unjust. (Now that Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, maybe they can divide that load.)

“I would likely think about it indefinitely if I fail to accomplish it,” Fritz informed a journalist in the summer of claiming a major. I hope he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not fulfill that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is actually highly unlikely for all other players. {