US Male Major Title Dry Spell Isn't Fritz's Responsibility to Bear

I have a few thoughts regarding the comments made by ESPN broadcaster a well-known announcer following Novak Djokovic's victory over Taylor Fritz in the New York major quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is the United States, the commentator is from the US – and sports frequently encourage nationalism. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Rather, Fowler brought up the continued absence of US male players at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the competition.

We all love a storyline, me too. But really. Suppose the American had beaten Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature the Spanish star was looming in the next round, whom Fritz has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom the American had lost 10 of the previous eleven sets. The two young stars had also divided the last seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz went on to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). Fritz stated in press following his defeat that he actually liked his path, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the top three players in the sport in succession. Fritz is well justified to aspire to the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to believe in themselves. But entering that Serbian quarter-final what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions on the brain?

The American, 28, is ranked fourth in the global rankings starting the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals 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 it’s clear that at present, that is as high as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard lie a chasm of ranking points away. His elite delivery and powerful power on both forehand and reverse side are more than adequate to defeat the majority of rivals on the professional circuit. Against the handful of generational talents, however, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The last several years has witnessed the interesting emergence of tall, gangly players who can nevertheless cover the court with the alarming quickness and grace of smaller players. Fritz is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was controlling, and hitting a soft shot against him is typically a safe bet. That acts as a quite harsh limitation on his potential.

Fritz has achieved a number of dramatic, unexpected improvements throughout his career. Early on of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the top 30. 24 months later, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly exploded up to No 4 – and maintained the spot. But the next leap, mixing it up with and defeating all-time-greats like Alcaraz, the Italian, and even a aging Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the ongoing slump of US male players lifting grand slams when he had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply excessive and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge insufficient.

The American's performance in that very last eight match should have been sufficient of an sign. The Serbian triumphed in four rounds, a win that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the very end, when the American had survived a few championship opportunities and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The duo appeared evenly matched during the rallies, with the American earning plenty of opportunities to break. But the champion saved break point after break point, extending the streak to the brink of frustration. When he eventually did convert one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a terrible game to drop serve once more; the Serbian had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to use excessive energy to win it. Facing match points in the last game, Fritz’s primary delivery floated to heaven. He prolonged the match twice on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It was not a collapse, in my opinion, just a consequence of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The match was quite ironclad evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any form of Djokovic, that lost to Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially seem like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his athletic abilities now, but has developed sufficient experience and tactical know-how to compensate for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is the individuals who were expecting Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was had not done anything that indicated he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the circuit regardless. He’s a calm, reflective voice in media sessions, more so than virtually anyone on the men's tour except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just express his emotions or the tactic he felt determined a match, but clarify it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the blame for the United States not spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unjust. (Now that the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, perhaps they can share that load.)

“I would likely think about it forever if I fail to do it,” the American told an interviewer in the summer of claiming a grand slam. It is hoped he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not fulfill that goal, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying empire is actually highly improbable for all other players. {