US Men's Major Title Drought Isn't Fritz's Responsibility to Bear

I have some opinions regarding the comments made by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler after the Serbian champion's victory over Taylor Fritz in the US Open quarter-finals. Look – the athlete represents American, the commentator is from the US – and sports frequently encourage nationalism. A little bit of letdown would have been appropriate. Rather, Fowler invoked the ongoing absence of US male players at grand slam tournaments: not one of them had lifted a trophy since the last American champion in 2003, and he had been the last one standing in the competition.

Everyone enjoy a narrative, myself included. But come on. Even if Fritz defeated Djokovic for the first time, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the following match, whom Fritz has yet to beat in an official match. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, versus him the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the last seven major titles (plus the Spaniard went on to thrash a fatigued Djokovic in the subsequent match). He stated in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the three best competitors in the sport in succession. Fritz is well within his right to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is supposed to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian quarter-final what other person sensibly had the lack of American champions in mind?

Fritz, 28, is placed fourth in the world starting the upcoming year-end championships and has secured his last six encounters over No 3 Alexander Zverev with growing comfort. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But evidently that right now, that is as high as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard lie a vast gap of ranking points away. Fritz’s top-class serve and powerful strength on each front side and reverse side are sufficiently enough to dispose of most rivals on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, though, Fritz is often helpless. The last several seasons has seen the interesting rise of lanky, towering athletes who can nevertheless move around with the alarming speed and grace of much shorter men. He is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he seldom win a rally that the other player was dictating, and playing a soft shot versus him is typically a reliable tactic. That acts as a pretty severe restriction on his potential.

Fritz has achieved a several significant, unexpected improvements over the years. Early on of the ten-year period, he was hovering around the lower end of the top 30. Two years after, he was sniffing the top 10. Last year, he unexpectedly exploded up to No 4 – and maintained the position. But the next leap, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and including a aging Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What could the commentator have been thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the ongoing slump of US male players lifting grand slams when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is just excessive and the respect for the magnitude of the task too little.

The American's play in that very last eight match should have been enough of an indication. Djokovic triumphed in four sets, a victory that only seemed tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when the American had saved a few match points and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with the American earning plenty of opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic saved service break opportunity after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the brink of agony. When he finally did convert a single of the opportunities at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately played a terrible service game to lose his own serve once more; the Serbian had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the real battle and forced him to expend far too much energy to win it. Facing set points in the last game, Fritz’s primary delivery floated to heaven. He prolonged the contest twice on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, only a result of needing to hit an excessive number of second serves.

The contest was quite ironclad proof that Fritz is not good enough to beat any form of the Serbian, who was defeated by Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially seem like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the height of his athletic abilities now, but has developed sufficient experience and strategic intelligence to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is the individuals who were anticipating Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that indicated he would.

Fritz is an asset to the circuit regardless. He’s a calm, thoughtful presence in media sessions, exceeding virtually anyone on the men's tour aside from Daniil Medvedev, willing to not only say how he feels or the strategy he believed determined a match, but explain it. That he should bear the brunt of the responsibility for America not spawn a male major champion since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Since the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, maybe they can share that load.)

“I would likely think about it forever if I don’t accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in the summer of winning a grand slam. I hope he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he doesn’t fulfill that objective, that overcoming Alcaraz and Sinner’s dominant, formidable reign is actually extremely unlikely for everybody else. {