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

I possess some thoughts regarding that remarks made by ESPN broadcaster a well-known announcer after Novak Djokovic's win over Taylor Fritz in the US Open quarter-finals. Look – the athlete represents the United States, the commentator is from the US – and sports frequently lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of letdown would have been understandable. Instead, Fowler invoked the ongoing drought of American men at the majors: 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 enjoy a storyline, myself included. But come on. Suppose the American had beaten the legend for the initial occasion, phenomenal talent Carlos Alcaraz was looming in the next round, who he has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And if he’d someway survived that, it would have been title holder Jannik Sinner, versus him the American had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven major titles (plus the Spaniard went on to defeat a fatigued Djokovic in the subsequent match). He stated in press after the loss that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the chance to beat the top three players in the world in succession. Fritz is more than justified to aim for the achievement; an competitor is supposed to believe in themselves. But entering that Serbian quarter-final who else sensibly had the drought of American champions on the brain?

Fritz, 28, is ranked fourth in the global rankings entering the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals and has won his previous six encounters over No 3 Alexander Zverev with increasing ease. It's likely he could take that spot for himself in the coming years. But it’s clear that right now, that’s as far as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a vast gap of ranking points away. Fritz’s elite serve and powerful power on each forehand and backhand are sufficiently adequate to dispose of most rivals on the professional circuit. When facing the handful of generational talents, however, he is often helpless. The last several years has witnessed the interesting emergence of tall, gangly athletes who can nevertheless move around with the surprising quickness and grace of much shorter players. He is 6ft 5ins and appears that way. His movement is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he’ll rarely 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 harsh restriction on his upside.

Fritz has made a several significant, unexpected advancements throughout his career. At the beginning of the ten-year period, he was hovering around the lower end of the world's best thirty. 24 months later, he was sniffing the top 10. The previous season, he unexpectedly surged to No 4 – and maintained the position. But the next leap, competing against and beating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and even a aging Serbian, is the toughest of all. What could Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a serious threat to beat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate mentioning the ongoing drought of American men lifting major titles when he had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply excessive and the respect for the magnitude of the task insufficient.

Fritz’s play in that very quarter-final should have been sufficient of an sign. The Serbian won in four rounds, a win that only seemed uncertain for brief periods towards the very end, when Fritz had saved a couple championship opportunities and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The duo appeared well-balanced during the exchanges, with the American creating numerous chances to win the opponent's serve. But Djokovic rescued service break opportunity after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the brink of frustration. When Fritz finally did convert one of the chances at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he promptly produced a terrible game to lose his own serve once more; Djokovic had lulled him into a battle peripheral to the main contest and compelled him to use excessive effort to win it. Facing set points in the final game, his primary delivery floated to heaven. He extended the contest twice on his second serve, but finally committed two errors. It was not a collapse, in my opinion, just a consequence of needing to hit too many second serves.

The match was quite ironclad evidence that the American is insufficiently skilled to beat any form of Djokovic, who lost to Alcaraz in the next round and did not particularly appeared like he believed he could triumph. This is perfectly fine – the Serbian is the greatest of all time, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has developed sufficient experience and strategic intelligence to compensate for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is those who were anticipating the American to win, and pressuring him to do so, when he was had not done anything that indicated he could.

The American is an asset to the tour nonetheless. He’s a patient, reflective voice in press conferences, exceeding almost anyone on the ATP except for the Russian star, willing to not only say how he feels or the strategy he felt decided a match, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the United States not spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unjust. (Now that Ben Shelton is rubbing shoulders with him in the rankings, perhaps they can share that burden.)

“I would likely think about it forever if I don’t accomplish it,” the American told a journalist in the summer of winning a major. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he doesn’t achieve that goal, that breaking through the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is in fact extremely unlikely for all other players. {