US Men's Grand Slam Dry Spell Is Not Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I have some thoughts about the remarks made by the sports network commentator a well-known announcer following Novak Djokovic's victory over the American player in the US Open quarter-finals. Consider – the athlete represents American, Fowler is from the US – and athletic competitions often lend themselves to nationalism. Some disappointment was understandable. Instead, he brought up the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: not one of them has won a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and he had been the last one standing in the competition.

We all love a narrative, me too. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the next round, who Fritz has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been title holder Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the last seven grand slams (plus the Spaniard went on to defeat a tired Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews after the loss that he actually liked his path, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the top three players in the world in succession. Fritz is more than within his right to aspire to the accomplishment; an competitor is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Djokovic quarter-final what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions on the brain?

Fritz, 28, is placed number four in the global rankings entering the upcoming year-end championships and has secured his previous six matches over third-ranked Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. Presumably he might take that spot for himself in the future. But evidently that at present, that’s as high as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard lie a chasm of ranking points away. Fritz’s elite delivery and concussive power on both forehand and reverse side are sufficiently adequate to defeat most rivals on the ATP tour. Against the select few generational talents, though, he is frequently overmatched. The past few seasons has seen the interesting emergence of tall, gangly players who can nevertheless move around with the alarming speed and fluidity of smaller men. He is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His footwork is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a drop shot against him is typically a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite severe limitation on his upside.

The American has achieved a number of dramatic, improbable advancements over the years. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was circling the bottom of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was approaching the elite ten. Last year, he suddenly surged up to fourth place – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, mixing it up with and defeating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a aging Serbian, is the highest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the continuing slump of US male players winning major titles when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply too much and the respect for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

Fritz’s play in that exact last eight match ought to have been sufficient of an indication. Djokovic won in four rounds, a victory that only seemed uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a couple championship opportunities and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The duo looked well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American creating numerous opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But the champion saved service break opportunity after break point, prolonging the run to the point of frustration. When he finally did convert one of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a terrible service game to lose his own serve again; Djokovic had lulled him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and forced him to use excessive energy to win it. Facing set points in the last game, his first serve floated to heaven. He prolonged the contest two times on his second serve, but finally committed two errors. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, only a consequence of needing to hit too many second serves.

The contest was fairly ironclad evidence that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to beat any form of the Serbian, that lost to Alcaraz in the next round and never particularly appeared like he thought he could win. This is perfectly acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has developed sufficient knowledge and strategic intelligence to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is the individuals who were anticipating Fritz to prevail, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that indicated he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the tour nonetheless. He’s a calm, thoughtful presence in press conferences, more so than almost anyone on the ATP except for the Russian star, willing to not just express his emotions or the tactic he believed decided a contest, but explain it. That he ought to bear the brunt of the blame for America not produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unjust. (Now that Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the rankings, perhaps they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely think about it indefinitely if I don’t do it,” the American informed a journalist in the summer of winning a grand slam. It is hoped he understands that he’s not a failure if he does not fulfill that objective, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is actually extremely unlikely for all other players. {