US Male Grand Slam Drought Is Not Fritz's Burden to Bear

I have a few thoughts about that comments delivered by ESPN broadcaster a well-known announcer after Novak Djokovic's victory over the American player in the US Open last eight. Look – Fritz is American, the commentator is American – and sports frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown was understandable. Instead, he brought up the ongoing absence of US male players 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.

Everyone love a storyline, myself included. But really. Suppose Fritz defeated the legend for the first time, phenomenal talent the Spanish star was looming in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an official match. And had he someway survived that, it would have been defending champion the Italian, against whom Fritz had dropped 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the previous seven grand slams (plus Alcaraz proceeded to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the subsequent match). He said in post-match interviews after the loss that he in fact preferred his path, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the three best competitors in the sport in succession. Fritz is well justified to aim for the achievement; an athlete is meant to believe in themselves. But entering that Serbian last eight match who else in their right mind had the drought of US winners on the brain?

The American, 28, is ranked fourth in the world starting this week’s ATP World Tour Finals and has won his previous six matches over No 3 the German with increasing ease. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But evidently that at present, that is as high as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard lie a vast gap of performance metrics away. Fritz’s top-class delivery and concussive strength on both front side and backhand are more than adequate to dispose of the majority of rivals on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of generational talents, though, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The last several seasons has seen the curious emergence of lanky, towering players who can nonetheless cover the court with the alarming quickness and fluidity of smaller players. He is six-foot-five and looks it. His footwork is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his legs. So he seldom steal a point that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a soft shot against him is usually a reliable tactic. That serves as a pretty severe limitation on his upside.

The American has achieved a number of dramatic, improbable advancements throughout his career. Early on of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the world's best thirty. Two years later, he was sniffing the top 10. Last year, he suddenly exploded up to No 4 – and held the position. But the next leap, mixing it up with and defeating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and including a declining Serbian, is the toughest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth mentioning the continuing drought of US male players lifting major titles when he had exited the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply excessive and the appreciation for the difficulty of the challenge insufficient.

Fritz’s performance in that very last eight match ought to have been enough of an sign. The Serbian triumphed in four rounds, a victory that only felt uncertain for brief periods towards the very end, when the American had survived a few match points and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The pair looked evenly matched during the exchanges, with the American creating plenty of chances to break. But the champion rescued service break opportunity after break point, prolonging the run to the point of frustration. When he finally did convert a single of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a horrendous service game to drop serve again; the Serbian had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to expend excessive energy to win it. Facing set points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery floated to the sky. He prolonged the contest twice on his second serve, but ultimately committed two errors. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, just a consequence of having to hit an excessive number of weaker deliveries.

The contest was fairly ironclad evidence that Fritz is not good enough to beat any version of Djokovic, that lost to the Spaniard in the following match and never particularly appeared like he thought he could win. This is perfectly fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the peak of his athletic abilities now, but has acquired enough experience and tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The issue 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 valuable contributor to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a calm, reflective voice in press conferences, more so than virtually everyone on the ATP except for the Russian star, prepared to not only say how he feels or the tactic he believed determined a match, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for America failing to produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unfair. (Now that the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, perhaps they can share that load.)

“I’d probably think about it forever if I fail to do it,” Fritz told an interviewer in June of claiming a major. I hope he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he doesn’t fulfill that goal, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is in fact highly unlikely for all other players. {