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

I have a few opinions regarding that comments delivered by the sports network commentator Chris Fowler after the Serbian champion's victory over the American player in the New York major last eight. Consider – Fritz is American, the commentator is American – and athletic competitions frequently encourage nationalism. A little bit of letdown was appropriate. Instead, he invoked the continued drought of American men at grand slam tournaments: not one of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the competition.

Everyone love a storyline, me too. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated Djokovic for the initial occasion, force of nature the Spanish star was waiting in the following match, whom Fritz has never defeated in an official match. And had he somehow survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz went on to thrash a tired Djokovic in the subsequent match). Fritz said in press after the loss that he in fact liked his draw, because it offered the opportunity to defeat the three best players in the sport back-to-back. Fritz is well within his right to aspire to the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to have faith in themselves. But going into that Serbian quarter-final who else sensibly had the lack of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the world starting the upcoming year-end championships and has won his previous 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 far as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a chasm of performance metrics away. Fritz’s top-class serve and powerful power on both forehand and backhand are more than enough to dispose of the majority of opponents on the professional circuit. Against the handful of once-in-a-lifetime players, though, Fritz is often overmatched. The past few seasons has witnessed the curious rise of tall, gangly athletes who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and grace of much shorter men. Fritz is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his limbs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a soft shot against him is usually a safe bet. That acts as a pretty severe limitation on his potential.

The American has achieved a number of significant, unexpected improvements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was circling the bottom of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was approaching the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly exploded up to fourth place – and held the spot. But the next leap, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like Alcaraz, the Italian, and including a declining Djokovic, is the highest of all. What was the commentator thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the ongoing drought of US male players lifting major titles when Fritz had exited the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply too much and the respect for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

Fritz’s performance in that very quarter-final ought to have been enough of an indication. The Serbian won in four rounds, a victory that only felt uncertain for moments towards the conclusion, when Fritz had survived a couple championship opportunities and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with Fritz earning numerous chances 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 Fritz finally did claim a single of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly played a terrible service game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had drawn him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and forced him to expend excessive effort to win it. Facing set points in the final game, his primary delivery floated to the sky. He extended the contest two times on his second serve, but ultimately double-faulted. It was not a collapse, in my opinion, only 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 defeat any version of the Serbian, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially appeared like he thought he could win. This is absolutely acceptable – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the height of his athletic abilities now, but has acquired enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for quite a bit of the decline. The issue is those who were expecting Fritz to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was had not done anything that suggested he would.

The American is an asset to the tour regardless. He’s a patient, thoughtful voice in press conferences, exceeding virtually anyone on the men's tour aside from Daniil Medvedev, willing to not only express how he feels or the strategy he believed determined a match, but clarify it. That he should bear the brunt of the responsibility for America not produce a male major champion since Andy Roddick seems unfair. (Now that Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the rankings, maybe they can share that load.)

“I would likely dwell on it forever if I fail to do it,” the American told a journalist in June of winning a grand slam. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he does not fulfill that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable empire is in fact highly improbable for all other players. {