American Men's Grand Slam Dry Spell Is Not Taylor Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I have a few opinions about the remarks delivered by the sports network commentator a well-known announcer after the Serbian champion's victory over Taylor Fritz in the New York major last eight. Consider – Fritz is the United States, the commentator is from the US – and sports frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was understandable. Rather, he brought up the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: none of them had lifted a title since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the competition.

Everyone enjoy a narrative, myself included. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was looming in the following match, who he has never defeated in an official match. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom Fritz had lost 10 of the previous eleven sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also split the previous seven grand slams (plus the Spaniard proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). Fritz stated in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the three best players in the sport in succession. He is well justified to aspire to the accomplishment; an athlete is meant to believe in themselves. But going into that Djokovic quarter-final who else in their right mind had the lack of American champions on the brain?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the global rankings starting this week’s ATP World Tour Finals and has won his last six encounters over No 3 the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that at present, that’s as high as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a vast gap of performance metrics away. His top-class serve and concussive power on both front side and backhand are more than enough to defeat the majority of opponents on the ATP tour. Against the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, however, Fritz is frequently helpless. The last several years has seen the curious rise of lanky, towering athletes who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of much shorter men. He is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his legs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the opponent was controlling, and playing a soft shot against him is typically a reliable tactic. That serves as a quite harsh restriction on his potential.

Fritz has made a number of significant, improbable advancements throughout his career. Early on of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the top 30. 24 months after, he was sniffing the top 10. Last year, he unexpectedly exploded up to No 4 – and held the position. But the next leap, competing against and defeating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a aging Serbian, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the ongoing slump of US male players winning grand slams when he had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task too little.

Fritz’s play in that very quarter-final ought to have been sufficient of an sign. The Serbian won in four rounds, a victory that only seemed tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when the American had saved a couple match points and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair appeared evenly matched during the rallies, with the American creating plenty of chances to win the opponent's serve. But the champion saved break point after break point, prolonging the streak to the brink of agony. When Fritz eventually did claim one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a terrible service game to lose his own serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a battle secondary to the real battle and forced him to expend excessive energy to prevail. Down match points in the last game, his primary delivery sailed to the sky. He extended the contest two times on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It wasn’t a collapse, in my opinion, just a result of needing to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The match was quite ironclad evidence that the American is insufficiently skilled to beat any version of the Serbian, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the following match and did not especially appeared like he thought he could win. This is perfectly acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers anymore, but has acquired enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the decline. The problem is those who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was had not done anything that suggested he could.

Fritz is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a patient, thoughtful presence in press conferences, more so than virtually everyone on the ATP except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just express his emotions or the tactic he felt determined a contest, but clarify it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the blame for the United States failing to spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, perhaps they can share that burden.)

“I’d probably think about it forever if I fail to accomplish it,” the American told an interviewer in June of winning a grand slam. It is hoped he realizes that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t fulfill that goal, that breaking through Alcaraz and Sinner’s dominant, formidable reign is actually extremely improbable for all other players. {