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

I have a few opinions regarding the remarks made by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following Novak Djokovic's victory over Taylor Fritz during the US Open quarter-finals. Consider – Fritz is the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions often encourage nationalism. A little bit of disappointment would have been understandable. Instead, he invoked the ongoing absence of American men at the majors: none of them had lifted a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the tournament.

Everyone love a storyline, me too. But come on. Even if Fritz had beaten Djokovic for the first time, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the next round, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, versus him the American had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also split the last seven major titles (and Alcaraz went on to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). Fritz stated in press after the loss that he actually liked his draw, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the top three players in the sport in succession. Fritz is more than justified to aim for the accomplishment; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian last eight match who else in their right mind had the lack of US winners on the brain?

The American, twenty-eight, is ranked fourth in the global rankings starting this week’s ATP World Tour Finals and has secured his previous six encounters over third-ranked the German with increasing ease. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But evidently that at present, that is as far as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. Fritz’s elite delivery and concussive strength on both front side and reverse side are sufficiently adequate to dispose of the majority of opponents on the ATP tour. When facing the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, however, he is often overmatched. The past few seasons has witnessed the curious rise of tall, gangly athletes who can nonetheless move around with the surprising speed and fluidity of much shorter players. He is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and playing a soft shot against him is typically a reliable tactic. That acts as a pretty harsh restriction on his upside.

The American has made a number of dramatic, improbable advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the lower end of the world's best thirty. Two years after, he was sniffing the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly surged to fourth place – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating legendary figures like Alcaraz, the Italian, and even a declining Serbian, is the toughest of all. What was Fowler have been thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate commenting on the continuing drought of US male players winning major titles when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

The American's performance in that very quarter-final should have been enough of an indication. Djokovic won in four sets, a victory that only seemed tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a couple championship opportunities and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo looked evenly matched during the rallies, with the American earning numerous chances to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic rescued service break opportunity after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the brink of agony. When Fritz finally did claim a single of the opportunities at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a horrendous service game to lose his own serve once more; the Serbian had lulled him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to use far too much energy to win it. Facing set points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery sailed to heaven. He prolonged the match two times on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It was not a collapse, in my opinion, only a result of having to hit too many second serves.

The contest was quite compelling proof that the American is insufficiently skilled to beat any form of the Serbian, who lost to Alcaraz in the following match and did not especially appeared like he thought he could win. This is absolutely fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has acquired sufficient knowledge and tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the drop-off. The issue is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was yet to accomplished anything that suggested he could.

The American is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a calm, thoughtful voice in media sessions, exceeding virtually everyone on the men's tour except for Daniil Medvedev, willing to not only say his emotions or the strategy he felt determined a match, but explain it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for America failing to spawn a male major champion since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, perhaps they can divide that load.)

“I’d probably think about it forever if I fail to do it,” the American informed an interviewer in June of winning a grand slam. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that objective, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is in fact highly unlikely for all other players. {