US Male Major Title Dry Spell Isn't Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I possess some thoughts about that remarks delivered by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler after Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz in the US Open quarter-finals. Look – the athlete represents the United States, the commentator is from the US – and athletic competitions frequently encourage patriotic sentiment. A little bit of disappointment was understandable. Instead, he invoked the ongoing drought of US male players at grand slam tournaments: not one of them has won a trophy since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the final representative in the competition.

We all enjoy a narrative, myself included. But really. Suppose the American defeated the legend for the first time, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And if he’d somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the last seven major titles (and the Spaniard went on to thrash a fatigued Serbian in the next round). Fritz said in press after the loss that he actually liked his path, because it presented the opportunity to beat the three best competitors in the sport in succession. He is well within his right to aspire to the accomplishment; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But entering that Serbian last eight match what other person sensibly had the drought of American champions on the brain?

The American, 28, is ranked fourth in the global rankings entering this week’s year-end championships and has won his previous six encounters over No 3 the German with growing comfort. It's likely he could claim that position for himself in the future. But evidently that at present, that is as high as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard sit a vast gap of ranking points away. Fritz’s elite delivery and powerful strength on both forehand and reverse side are more than enough to defeat the majority of opponents on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of generational talents, though, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The last several years has witnessed the curious emergence of lanky, towering athletes who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and grace of smaller players. He is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he’ll rarely steal a point that the opponent was controlling, and playing a soft shot against him is usually a safe bet. That serves as a pretty harsh restriction on his upside.

Fritz has achieved a number of significant, unexpected advancements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the lower end of the top 30. 24 months later, he was approaching the top 10. Last year, he unexpectedly surged up to fourth place – and held the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a aging Djokovic, is the highest of all. What was the commentator have been thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the continuing drought of American men winning grand slams when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is simply too much and the respect for the magnitude of the challenge too little.

The American's play in that exact quarter-final ought to have been sufficient of an indication. The Serbian won in four rounds, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when the American had survived a few championship opportunities and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with Fritz creating plenty of opportunities to break. But the champion saved service break opportunity after service break opportunity, prolonging the streak to the point of frustration. When he eventually did convert one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly played a terrible service game to drop serve again; the Serbian had lulled him into a skirmish peripheral to the main contest and compelled him to use excessive energy to win it. Down match points in the last game, his first serve floated to the sky. He extended the match twice on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It wasn’t a collapse, in my opinion, only a consequence of having to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The contest was fairly compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any form of the Serbian, that lost to the Spaniard in the next round and never particularly appeared like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the height of his physical powers anymore, but has acquired sufficient knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for a significant portion of the decline. The issue is the individuals who were anticipating the American to win, and putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was yet to done anything that suggested he could.

The American is an asset to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in media sessions, more so than virtually anyone on the ATP aside from Daniil Medvedev, willing to not just express how he feels or the strategy he felt decided a match, but clarify it. That he should bear the brunt of the responsibility for America not spawn a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick seems unfair. (Now that Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, perhaps they can share that burden.)

“I’d probably think about it indefinitely if I fail to do it,” the American told a journalist in the summer of claiming a grand slam. I hope he realizes that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that goal, that breaking through Alcaraz and Sinner’s young, terrifying reign is actually highly unlikely for everybody else. {