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

I possess a few opinions about the comments delivered by ESPN commentator a well-known announcer following the Serbian champion's victory over the American player in the US Open quarter-finals. Look – the athlete represents the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions frequently lend themselves to nationalism. A little bit of disappointment would have been appropriate. Instead, Fowler brought up the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: none of them had lifted a trophy since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the tournament.

Everyone love a narrative, myself included. But really. Even if Fritz defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the next round, whom he has never defeated in an competitive encounter. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been title holder the Italian, versus him Fritz had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also split the last seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz went on to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). He said in press following his defeat that he actually liked his draw, because it presented the opportunity to beat the top three players in the sport in succession. Fritz is well within his right to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to believe in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final what other person in their right mind had the drought of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming year-end championships and has won his last six matches over No 3 the German with increasing ease. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But it’s clear that at present, that is as far as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. His top-class serve and concussive power on each forehand and backhand are sufficiently enough to defeat the majority of rivals on the ATP tour. When facing the select few once-in-a-lifetime players, though, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The past few years has seen the curious rise of tall, gangly players who can nevertheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of smaller men. Fritz is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the other player was controlling, and playing a drop shot versus him is usually a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite severe restriction on his upside.

Fritz has achieved a number of significant, unexpected advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was circling the lower end of the top 30. Two years later, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly surged to No 4 – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and defeating all-time-greats like Alcaraz, Sinner, and even a aging 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 US male players lifting grand slams when Fritz had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge too little.

Fritz’s play in that exact quarter-final should have been sufficient of an indication. The Serbian triumphed in four sets, a victory that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the very end, when Fritz had survived a few match points and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The pair looked evenly matched during the exchanges, with Fritz earning numerous opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic saved service break opportunity after service break opportunity, prolonging the run to the brink of agony. When he finally did convert one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a terrible game to lose his own serve again; Djokovic had lulled him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to expend far too much effort to prevail. Facing match points in the final game, his primary delivery floated to the sky. He prolonged the contest twice on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, just a consequence of needing to hit too many second serves.

The match was fairly ironclad proof that the American is not good enough to beat any version of the Serbian, who lost to the Spaniard in the following match and did not especially appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is perfectly fine – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his athletic abilities anymore, but has developed sufficient knowledge and tactical know-how to make up for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is those who were expecting the American to prevail, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was had not accomplished anything that suggested he could.

Fritz is an asset to the tour nonetheless. He’s a calm, thoughtful presence in press conferences, exceeding virtually anyone on the men's tour aside from the Russian star, prepared to not only express how he feels or the strategy he believed decided a contest, but clarify it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the United States not produce a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, maybe they can share that burden.)

“I’d probably think about it indefinitely if I don’t do it,” the American told a journalist in June of claiming a major. I hope he realizes that he’s not unsuccessful if he does not fulfill that objective, that breaking through Alcaraz and Sinner’s young, terrifying reign is in fact highly unlikely for everybody else. {