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

I have some opinions about the remarks made by ESPN broadcaster Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's victory over the American player during the New York major quarter-finals. Consider – the athlete represents the United States, Fowler is from the US – and sports often encourage patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Rather, he invoked the continued absence of American men at grand slam tournaments: not one of them had lifted a title since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the tournament.

Everyone enjoy a storyline, me too. But really. Suppose the American defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature the Spanish star was waiting in the following match, whom Fritz has yet to beat in an official match. And had he someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He stated in post-match interviews following his defeat that he in fact preferred his draw, because it offered the opportunity to beat the three best competitors in the world in succession. Fritz is more than justified to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to have faith in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final who else in their right mind had the lack of US winners on the brain?

The American, twenty-eight, is ranked number four in the world starting the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has secured his previous six encounters over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that at present, that is as high as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a vast gap of performance metrics away. His top-class delivery and concussive strength on both front side and reverse side are sufficiently enough to dispose of the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the select few generational talents, however, he is often helpless. The past few seasons has seen the interesting emergence of tall, gangly athletes who can nonetheless move around with the surprising speed and fluidity of smaller players. Fritz is six-foot-five and appears that way. His movement is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was controlling, and playing a soft shot against him is typically a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite severe restriction on his potential.

The American has made a number of dramatic, improbable advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was circling the lower end of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was approaching the elite ten. The previous season, he unexpectedly exploded to No 4 – and maintained the position. But the next leap, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a declining Djokovic, is the highest of all. What could Fowler thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a serious threat to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the ongoing slump of American men lifting major titles when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply too much and the respect for the difficulty of the challenge insufficient.

The American's play in that exact last eight match ought to have been enough of an sign. The Serbian won in four sets, a win that only seemed tenuous for moments towards the conclusion, when the American had saved a few championship opportunities and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The duo looked evenly matched during the exchanges, with Fritz earning plenty of opportunities to break. But the champion rescued service break opportunity after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the brink of frustration. When he eventually did claim one of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately played a horrendous game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had drawn him into a battle secondary to the real battle and forced him to use excessive effort to prevail. Down match points in the last game, his first serve floated to the sky. He prolonged the match twice on his backup delivery, but finally double-faulted. It wasn’t a choke, in my opinion, only a consequence of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The match was fairly compelling proof that the American is not good enough to beat any form of Djokovic, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially appeared like he believed he could win. This is perfectly fine – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the height of his physical powers anymore, but has developed sufficient knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is the individuals who were anticipating the American to win, and pressuring him to achieve that, when he was yet to accomplished anything that indicated he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the tour nonetheless. He’s a patient, reflective voice in press conferences, more so than virtually anyone on the men's tour aside from Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just express his emotions or the tactic he felt determined a match, but explain it. That he should shoulder the majority of the blame for the United States not spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Now that Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, perhaps they can share that load.)

“I would likely think about it forever if I don’t do it,” the American told an interviewer in the summer of winning a major. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he does not achieve that objective, that overcoming Alcaraz and Sinner’s dominant, formidable reign is in fact extremely unlikely for all other players. {