US Men's Major Title Drought Is Not Fritz's Responsibility to Carry

I possess some opinions about the remarks delivered by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's victory over Taylor Fritz in the New York major quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is American, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown would have been understandable. Instead, he brought up the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: none 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 love a narrative, me too. But really. Even if the American had beaten Djokovic for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the following match, who he has never defeated in an official match. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, against whom the American 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 tired Serbian in the subsequent match). He said in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually liked his draw, because it presented the opportunity to defeat the three best players in the sport back-to-back. Fritz is well within his right to aim for the achievement; an athlete is supposed to have faith in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final what other person in their right mind had the drought of US winners on the brain?

The American, twenty-eight, is ranked fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming year-end championships and has secured his last six encounters over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. It's likely he might take that spot for himself in the future. But it’s clear that right now, that’s as far as he can rise: The Italian and Spaniard lie a vast gap of performance metrics away. His top-class delivery and powerful power on both forehand and backhand are sufficiently adequate to dispose of the majority of opponents on the professional circuit. When facing the select few generational talents, though, Fritz is often helpless. The last several years has witnessed the curious rise of lanky, towering athletes who can nevertheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of much shorter players. Fritz is six-foot-five and appears that way. His footwork is rigid, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and playing a drop shot versus him is typically a safe bet. That serves as a quite severe limitation on his upside.

Fritz has achieved a number of dramatic, unexpected improvements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. 24 months after, he was sniffing the top 10. Last year, he suddenly surged up to No 4 – and held the position. But the subsequent step, competing against and beating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and including a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What could the commentator thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the continuing slump of US male players winning major titles when Fritz had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just excessive and the appreciation for the magnitude of the task too little.

Fritz’s play in that exact quarter-final should have been enough of an sign. Djokovic triumphed in four rounds, a win that only felt uncertain for brief periods towards the very end, when the American had saved a few championship opportunities and had a chance to maintain serve for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the rallies, with the American creating plenty of chances to win the opponent's serve. But the champion rescued service break opportunity after break point, prolonging the run to the point of agony. When he finally did claim one of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he immediately played a horrendous service game to lose his own serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a battle secondary to the main contest and compelled him to expend excessive energy to win it. Facing match points in the final game, his primary delivery sailed to the sky. He prolonged the contest two times on his second serve, but finally committed two errors. It was not a choke, I didn’t think, just a consequence of needing to hit too many second serves.

The match was quite compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any version of the Serbian, that lost to Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially appeared like he believed he could win. This is perfectly acceptable – Djokovic is the greatest of all time, and might not be at the peak of his athletic abilities anymore, but has developed enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to make up for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is those who were anticipating the American to prevail, and putting pressure on him to achieve that, when he was yet to done anything that indicated he could.

The American is an valuable contributor to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a calm, reflective presence in media sessions, exceeding almost everyone on the ATP aside from the Russian star, willing to not just say his emotions or the tactic he believed determined a contest, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the blame for America not produce a male major champion since Andy Roddick seems unfair. (Since Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the rankings, maybe they can share that load.)

“I would likely think about it forever if I don’t do 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 the Spanish and Italian's dominant, formidable reign is actually extremely improbable for all other players. {