US Male Grand Slam Drought Is Not Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Bear

I possess a few thoughts regarding that comments delivered by ESPN commentator Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's victory over the American player in the New York major last eight. Consider – the athlete represents American, the commentator is American – and sports frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was understandable. Instead, he brought up the continued absence of American men at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the tournament.

We all love a storyline, me too. But really. Even if Fritz defeated the legend for the initial occasion, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the next round, who Fritz has never defeated in an official match. And if he’d somehow survived that, it would have been title holder the Italian, against whom the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the previous seven major titles (plus the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a tired Djokovic in the next round). Fritz stated in press following his defeat that he actually preferred his draw, because it offered the opportunity to beat the top three players in the sport in succession. He is well within his right to aspire to the achievement; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian last eight match who else sensibly had the drought of American champions in mind?

The American, twenty-eight, is placed number four in the global rankings entering this week’s year-end championships and has won his last six matches over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. Presumably he might take that spot for himself in the coming years. But evidently that right now, that is as far as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of ranking points away. His elite delivery and concussive strength on both forehand and backhand are sufficiently adequate to dispose of the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, however, he is frequently helpless. The past few years has seen the interesting emergence of lanky, towering players who can nevertheless move around with the surprising quickness and fluidity of smaller players. He is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His footwork is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his legs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the other player was controlling, and playing a drop shot versus him is typically a reliable tactic. That serves as a pretty severe restriction on his potential.

Fritz has made a several dramatic, unexpected advancements 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 top 10. The previous season, he suddenly surged up to No 4 – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating legendary figures like Alcaraz, the Italian, and including a aging Serbian, is the highest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the continuing slump of American men winning grand slams when he had exited the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge insufficient.

Fritz’s play in that exact quarter-final ought to have been sufficient of an indication. The Serbian triumphed in four rounds, a win that only seemed tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a couple championship opportunities and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair appeared well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American earning numerous chances to break. But Djokovic rescued break point after break point, prolonging the streak to the brink of agony. When Fritz finally did claim one of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a horrendous game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had drawn him into a battle secondary to the main contest and forced him to use excessive effort to win it. Down set points in the final game, his first serve sailed to the sky. He prolonged the match twice on his second serve, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a collapse, in my opinion, just a result of needing to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The match was fairly compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any form of Djokovic, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the following match and did not especially seem like he thought he could triumph. This is perfectly fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his physical powers now, but has acquired sufficient experience and tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the drop-off. The problem is the individuals who were expecting Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to achieve that, when he was yet to done anything that suggested he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the tour regardless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in media sessions, more so than virtually everyone on the men's tour except for the Russian star, prepared to not only say how he feels or the strategy he felt decided a contest, but clarify it. That he should bear the brunt of the blame for the United States not produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Now that the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, maybe they can divide that burden.)

“I’d probably think about it indefinitely if I fail to do it,” Fritz told an interviewer in June of winning a grand slam. It is hoped he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not achieve that goal, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying empire is actually highly unlikely for all other players. {