American Men's Grand Slam Drought Isn't Taylor Fritz's Burden to Bear

I possess some opinions about that comments made by ESPN broadcaster Chris Fowler after Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz during the New York major last eight. Look – Fritz is American, Fowler is from the US – and athletic competitions frequently encourage nationalism. Some letdown was understandable. Rather, he brought up the ongoing drought of US male players at the majors: not one of them had lifted a title since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the competition.

Everyone love a narrative, me too. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated the legend for the initial occasion, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the following match, whom Fritz has yet to beat in an official match. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been title holder Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also divided the last seven major titles (and the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews after the loss that he in fact liked his draw, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the three best players in the sport back-to-back. He is well justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is meant to believe in themselves. But going into that Serbian last eight match what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions on the brain?

Fritz, 28, is placed fourth 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. It's likely he might claim that position for himself in the coming years. But evidently that at present, that’s as high as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a chasm of performance metrics away. His elite serve and concussive strength on each forehand and reverse side are sufficiently adequate to defeat the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the select few once-in-a-lifetime players, though, he is often helpless. The last several years has witnessed the curious rise of tall, gangly players who can nevertheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of much shorter men. He is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His movement is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he’ll rarely steal a point that the other player was controlling, and playing a soft shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That serves as a quite severe restriction on his potential.

Fritz has made a several significant, improbable advancements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was hovering around the lower end of the world's best thirty. 24 months after, he was sniffing the elite ten. The previous season, he unexpectedly exploded to fourth place – and held the position. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and including a aging Serbian, is the toughest of all. What was the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate commenting on the ongoing slump of US male players winning grand slams when he had exited the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply excessive and the respect for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

The American's play in that exact last eight match should have been sufficient of an sign. The Serbian won in four sets, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when the American had survived a few championship opportunities and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The duo looked evenly matched during the exchanges, with the American creating plenty of chances to break. But Djokovic saved break point after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the point of frustration. When Fritz eventually did convert a single of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately produced a terrible game to drop serve again; Djokovic had lulled him into a battle secondary to the main contest and compelled him to expend excessive effort to win it. Facing match points in the final game, his first serve sailed to heaven. He extended the contest two times on his second serve, but finally committed two errors. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, just a result of having to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The contest was fairly compelling evidence that Fritz is not good enough to defeat any form of Djokovic, who was defeated by Alcaraz in the following match and did not especially appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is perfectly fine – the Serbian is the best player ever, and might not be at the height of his physical powers anymore, but has developed sufficient experience 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 putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was had not accomplished anything that suggested he could.

The American is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a calm, thoughtful voice in press conferences, exceeding almost anyone on the men's tour except for Daniil Medvedev, willing to not only say his emotions or the tactic he felt decided a contest, but clarify it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for America failing to produce a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the rankings, maybe they can share that load.)

“I’d probably think about it indefinitely if I fail to accomplish it,” Fritz informed an interviewer in June of claiming a major. It is hoped he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not fulfill that goal, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying empire is actually extremely unlikely for everybody else. {