US Male Grand Slam Dry Spell Isn't Fritz's Burden to Carry

I have a few thoughts about the remarks delivered by ESPN broadcaster Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's win over Taylor Fritz during the US Open quarter-finals. Consider – the athlete represents American, Fowler is from the US – and athletic competitions frequently lend themselves to nationalism. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Instead, he brought up the continued absence of American men at the majors: not one of them has won a trophy since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the last one standing in the tournament.

Everyone love a storyline, me too. But really. Even if Fritz had beaten Djokovic for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the next round, who Fritz has never defeated in an official match. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, versus him Fritz had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the last seven major titles (and Alcaraz proceeded to thrash a fatigued Djokovic in the next round). Fritz said in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually liked his path, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the top three competitors in the world back-to-back. Fritz is well justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is supposed to have faith in themselves. But entering that Djokovic last eight match who else sensibly had the lack of American champions in mind?

The American, twenty-eight, is placed fourth in the global rankings starting the upcoming year-end championships and has won his last six matches over third-ranked the German with increasing ease. It's likely he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that at present, that’s as high as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. His top-class delivery and powerful power on both forehand and reverse side are more than adequate to dispose of the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. Against the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, however, he is often helpless. The past few years has witnessed the interesting rise of lanky, towering players who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising quickness and fluidity of much shorter men. He is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he seldom win a rally that the other player was dictating, and playing a soft shot versus him is usually a safe bet. That serves as a pretty severe limitation on his upside.

Fritz has made a number of significant, improbable advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the world's best thirty. Two years later, he was sniffing the top 10. Last year, he suddenly surged up to fourth place – and maintained the spot. But the next leap, competing against and defeating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What could the commentator have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the ongoing slump of American men winning grand slams when he had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just excessive and the appreciation for the magnitude of the challenge too little.

Fritz’s performance in that very quarter-final ought to have been sufficient of an sign. Djokovic triumphed in four sets, a victory that only felt uncertain for brief periods towards the very end, when the American had survived a couple match points and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American creating numerous opportunities to break. But the champion saved service break opportunity after service break opportunity, prolonging the streak to the brink of agony. When Fritz finally did convert a single of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly produced a terrible game to drop serve again; Djokovic had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the main contest and compelled him to expend excessive energy to prevail. Facing match points in the final game, his first serve sailed to heaven. He extended the contest twice on his second serve, but finally double-faulted. It wasn’t a collapse, I didn’t think, only a result of having to hit too many second serves.

The match was fairly compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any version of Djokovic, who lost to Alcaraz in the following match and never especially seem like he believed he could triumph. This is perfectly acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his physical powers anymore, but has acquired sufficient experience and tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the drop-off. The problem is those who were anticipating the American to win, and pressuring him to achieve that, when he was had not done anything that suggested he would.

The American is an asset to the circuit regardless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in press conferences, exceeding virtually everyone on the men's tour aside from the Russian star, prepared to not just say his emotions or the tactic he believed determined a contest, but clarify it. That he should bear the brunt of the responsibility for America not produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unjust. (Now that the fellow American is competing alongside him in the rankings, maybe they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely dwell on it forever if I don’t accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in June of winning a major. It is hoped he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable reign is actually highly unlikely for all other players. {