American Male Grand Slam Drought Is Not Taylor Fritz's Burden to Bear

I possess a few thoughts about that comments delivered by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's victory over the American player during the New York major quarter-finals. Consider – the athlete represents American, Fowler is American – and sports often lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of disappointment was understandable. Instead, he brought up the ongoing absence of American men at grand slam tournaments: none 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 narrative, myself included. But come on. Suppose the American defeated Djokovic for the first time, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the next round, whom Fritz has never defeated in an competitive encounter. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven grand slams (plus the Spaniard went on to thrash a tired Djokovic in the subsequent match). Fritz stated in press after the loss that he actually liked his draw, because it presented the chance to defeat the top three players in the sport in succession. He is well justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But going into that Djokovic quarter-final what other person in their right mind had the lack of American champions on the brain?

Fritz, 28, is ranked number four in the world starting this week’s year-end championships and has won his last six matches over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. It's likely he might claim that position for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that right now, that’s as high as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a chasm of ranking points away. His top-class delivery and powerful power on both front side and reverse side are more than enough to defeat most rivals on the professional circuit. Against the handful of generational talents, though, Fritz is often helpless. The past few years has witnessed the curious emergence of tall, gangly players who can nonetheless move around with the surprising quickness and fluidity of smaller men. Fritz is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was controlling, and hitting a soft shot against him is typically a reliable tactic. That serves as a pretty harsh restriction on his upside.

The American has made a number of significant, improbable improvements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the lower end of the world's best thirty. Two years later, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he unexpectedly exploded to No 4 – and held the position. But the next leap, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like Alcaraz, the Italian, and including a aging Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the ongoing drought of American men lifting major titles when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just excessive and the appreciation for the difficulty of the task too little.

The American's play in that exact quarter-final ought to have been enough of an sign. Djokovic won in four sets, a win that only seemed uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when the American had saved a few match points and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair looked evenly matched during the exchanges, with Fritz earning plenty of opportunities to break. But the champion saved break point after break point, prolonging the streak to the point of agony. When Fritz finally did convert a single of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly played a horrendous service game to drop serve once more; the Serbian had drawn him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and compelled him to expend far too much energy to win it. Facing set points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery sailed to the sky. He prolonged the contest two times on his backup delivery, but finally committed two errors. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, only a result of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was fairly ironclad evidence that Fritz is not good enough to defeat any form of Djokovic, who lost to Alcaraz in the following match and never especially seem like he thought he could win. This is absolutely acceptable – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his athletic abilities anymore, but has developed sufficient experience and tactical know-how to make up for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was yet to done anything that suggested he would.

Fritz is an asset to the circuit regardless. He’s a patient, reflective presence in press conferences, more so than almost everyone on the ATP except for the Russian star, prepared to not only say how he feels or the tactic he believed determined a contest, but explain it. That he should bear the brunt of the blame for the United States failing to spawn a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick feels unjust. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, maybe they can share that burden.)

“I’d probably dwell on it forever if I fail to do it,” the American informed an interviewer in the summer of claiming a grand slam. It is hoped he realizes that he’s not a failure if he does not fulfill that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable reign is actually highly unlikely for everybody else. {