American Men's Grand Slam Drought Is Not Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I have a few opinions about that remarks delivered by ESPN commentator Chris Fowler after Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz during the US Open last eight. Look – the athlete represents the United States, Fowler is from the US – and sports often encourage nationalism. Some letdown would have been understandable. Instead, he invoked the continued drought of US male players at grand slam tournaments: not one of them has won a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the tournament.

We all enjoy a storyline, myself included. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated the legend for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was waiting in the next round, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And if he’d somehow gotten past that, it would have been title holder the Italian, against whom Fritz had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. The two young stars had also divided the previous seven grand slams (plus the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a fatigued Djokovic in the subsequent match). He said in post-match interviews following his defeat that he in fact preferred his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the three best players in the world back-to-back. He is more than justified to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to have faith in themselves. But entering that Serbian last eight match what other person sensibly had the drought of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is ranked fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has secured his previous six matches over third-ranked Alexander Zverev with growing comfort. It's likely he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that right now, that is as far as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a chasm of performance metrics away. His elite serve and powerful power on each front side and backhand are more than enough to defeat the majority of opponents on the ATP tour. When facing the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, though, he is frequently helpless. The last several seasons has witnessed the curious rise of lanky, towering athletes who can nevertheless cover the court with the surprising speed and grace of much shorter players. Fritz is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was controlling, and hitting a soft shot versus him is usually a safe bet. That serves as a quite severe limitation on his upside.

The American has made a several dramatic, improbable improvements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the world's best thirty. 24 months after, he was sniffing the elite ten. Last year, he suddenly exploded up to fourth place – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating all-time-greats like Alcaraz, the Italian, and even a declining Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the continuing drought of US male players lifting grand slams when he had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply too much and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge too little.

Fritz’s play in that exact last eight match ought to have been sufficient of an sign. The Serbian triumphed in four sets, a win that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when Fritz had survived a few championship opportunities and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with the American earning numerous opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic rescued break point after service break opportunity, extending the run to the brink of frustration. When Fritz eventually did claim one of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a horrendous game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and compelled him to expend far too much effort to prevail. Facing set points in the final game, Fritz’s first serve floated to heaven. He extended the match twice on his second serve, but finally committed two errors. It wasn’t a collapse, I didn’t think, just a result of needing to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The match was fairly compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to defeat any version of Djokovic, that was defeated by the Spaniard in the following match and never especially appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the peak of his athletic abilities now, but has developed sufficient experience and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the decline. The problem is those who were anticipating the American to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was had not accomplished anything that indicated he would.

Fritz is an valuable contributor to the circuit regardless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in media sessions, exceeding virtually anyone on the ATP except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not only express how he feels or the strategy he felt determined a match, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the blame for the United States not spawn a male major champion since the last American titlist seems unjust. (Since the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, maybe they can divide that load.)

“I’d probably think about it forever if I don’t accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in the summer of claiming a major. It is hoped he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he doesn’t fulfill that goal, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is in fact extremely improbable for all other players. {