American Male Grand Slam Dry Spell Isn't Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I have some opinions regarding the remarks delivered by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's win over the American player during the New York major last eight. Consider – Fritz is the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. Some disappointment was appropriate. Rather, Fowler brought up the ongoing drought of American men at grand slam tournaments: none of them has won a trophy since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the competition.

We all love a storyline, me too. But come on. Suppose the American defeated the legend for the first time, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was looming in the following match, who he has never defeated in an competitive encounter. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, versus him Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the last seven major titles (plus the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). Fritz said in press following his defeat that he in fact preferred his draw, because it presented the opportunity to beat the three best players in the world back-to-back. He is more than justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Djokovic last eight match what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions in mind?

The American, 28, is ranked fourth in the world entering the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has won his last six matches over third-ranked the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But evidently that right now, that is as far as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a chasm of ranking points away. His elite serve and concussive strength on each front side and backhand are more than enough to defeat most rivals on the ATP tour. Against the select few once-in-a-lifetime players, however, he is often overmatched. The past few years has seen the curious rise of tall, gangly athletes who can nevertheless move around with the alarming quickness and fluidity of much shorter men. He is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His movement is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he seldom win a rally that the other player was controlling, and playing a drop shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That acts as a quite harsh limitation on his upside.

Fritz has achieved a number of significant, improbable advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was sniffing the elite ten. Last year, he unexpectedly surged up to fourth place – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, mixing it up with and defeating all-time-greats like Alcaraz, the Italian, and including a declining Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What was Fowler have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to beat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate commenting on the ongoing slump of American men winning grand slams when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply excessive and the appreciation for the difficulty of the task insufficient.

Fritz’s performance in that very quarter-final should have been enough of an indication. Djokovic triumphed in four rounds, a victory that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when Fritz had saved a few championship opportunities and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair looked evenly matched during the rallies, with the American creating plenty of opportunities to break. But Djokovic rescued service break opportunity after break point, prolonging the streak to the brink of frustration. When he finally did claim one of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a terrible service game to drop serve once more; the Serbian had drawn him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and forced him to use excessive effort to prevail. Down match points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery sailed to heaven. He prolonged the match two times on his second serve, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a collapse, I didn’t think, only a consequence of having to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The match was fairly ironclad evidence that the American is not good enough to defeat any version of the Serbian, who was defeated by the Spaniard in the following match and did not particularly seem like he believed he could triumph. This is perfectly acceptable – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his athletic abilities now, but has acquired sufficient experience and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the decline. The problem is the individuals who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was yet to accomplished anything that indicated he could.

The American is an asset to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a patient, thoughtful voice in media sessions, more so than almost everyone on the men's tour aside from Daniil Medvedev, willing to not only express his emotions or the strategy he believed determined a contest, but explain it. That he should shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the United States not produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unjust. (Since the fellow American is competing alongside him in the rankings, perhaps they can share that load.)

“I would likely dwell on it forever if I fail to accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in June of winning a major. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that goal, that overcoming Alcaraz and Sinner’s dominant, formidable empire is actually highly unlikely for all other players. {