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

I have some thoughts about that remarks delivered by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following Novak Djokovic's victory over the American player in the New York major last eight. Look – the athlete represents the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions often lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. Some disappointment was appropriate. Rather, he brought up the ongoing drought of American men at grand slam tournaments: not one of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the last one standing in the competition.

Everyone love a narrative, me too. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated Djokovic for the first time, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the following match, who he has never defeated in an competitive encounter. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been title holder Jannik Sinner, against whom the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the previous seven grand slams (plus the Spaniard went on to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). Fritz said in post-match interviews following his defeat that he in fact liked his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the three best players in the world in succession. Fritz is well justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Djokovic last eight match what other person in their right mind had the lack of American champions on the brain?

Fritz, 28, is ranked number four in the global rankings starting the upcoming year-end championships and has won his previous six encounters over No 3 Alexander Zverev with growing comfort. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But it’s clear that right now, that’s as far as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a vast gap of ranking points away. His elite delivery and concussive strength on each forehand and reverse side are sufficiently adequate to defeat the majority of rivals on the professional circuit. Against the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, though, Fritz is often overmatched. The past few seasons has witnessed the interesting rise of lanky, towering athletes who can nevertheless move around with the surprising speed and fluidity of smaller players. He is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His movement is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the other player was controlling, and hitting a soft shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite severe limitation on his potential.

Fritz has made a number of significant, improbable improvements throughout his career. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. Two years after, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he unexpectedly surged to No 4 – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, mixing it up with and defeating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and including a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the continuing drought of American men lifting grand slams when Fritz had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just too much and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task too little.

Fritz’s play in that exact quarter-final should have been sufficient of an sign. Djokovic won in four rounds, a win that only seemed tenuous for brief periods towards the very end, when Fritz had survived a few match points and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared evenly matched during the rallies, with the American earning numerous opportunities to break. But the champion saved service break opportunity after service break opportunity, prolonging the streak to the point of agony. When he finally did convert a single of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly played a horrendous game to drop serve again; the Serbian had lulled him into a battle secondary to the real battle and compelled him to expend far too much effort to win it. Down match points in the final game, his primary delivery sailed to the sky. He prolonged the contest twice on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It wasn’t a choke, I didn’t think, only a consequence of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was quite ironclad proof that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to beat any version of Djokovic, that lost to the Spaniard in the following match and did not particularly appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – the Serbian is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his athletic abilities now, but has developed enough knowledge and tactical know-how to compensate for a significant portion of the drop-off. The problem is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to done anything that suggested he would.

Fritz is an valuable contributor to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a calm, reflective voice in press conferences, exceeding virtually everyone on the ATP except for Daniil Medvedev, willing to not just express his emotions or the strategy he believed decided a match, but explain it. That he should shoulder the majority of the blame for America not spawn a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unjust. (Since Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, maybe they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely dwell on it forever if I fail to do it,” the American told a journalist in the summer of winning a grand slam. It is hoped he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that goal, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying empire is in fact highly improbable for everybody else. {