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

I have a few opinions regarding the comments delivered by ESPN commentator Chris Fowler after Novak Djokovic's win over the American player during the US Open last eight. Consider – the athlete represents the United States, Fowler is from the US – and athletic competitions often lend themselves to patriotic sentiment. A little bit of disappointment would have been understandable. Instead, he invoked the ongoing absence of US male players at the majors: 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.

We all love a narrative, me too. But come on. Suppose Fritz defeated the legend for the first time, force of nature Carlos Alcaraz was waiting in the next round, who he has yet to beat in an official match. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been defending champion Jannik Sinner, versus him Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven major titles (and Alcaraz went on to defeat a fatigued Serbian in the next round). He said in press following his defeat that he actually liked his draw, because it presented the chance to defeat the top three players in the sport in succession. Fritz is well within his right to aim for the achievement; an athlete is meant to have faith in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final who else in their right mind had the lack of US winners in mind?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the world starting this week’s year-end championships and has secured his previous six encounters over No 3 the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the future. But it’s clear that right now, that is as far as he can climb: Sinner and Alcaraz sit a vast gap of performance metrics away. Fritz’s top-class delivery and powerful strength on both front side and backhand are sufficiently adequate to defeat most rivals on the ATP tour. Against the select few generational talents, though, he is frequently helpless. The past few years has witnessed the interesting rise of tall, gangly players who can nonetheless move around with the surprising speed and grace of much shorter players. Fritz is six-foot-five and appears that way. His movement is rigid, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his legs. So he seldom win a rally that the other player was controlling, and playing a drop shot against him is usually a safe bet. That serves as a pretty severe restriction on his upside.

The American has made a number of significant, unexpected improvements throughout his career. Early on of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. 24 months after, he was sniffing the top 10. The previous season, he unexpectedly exploded up to No 4 – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, competing against and defeating all-time-greats like the young Spaniard, the Italian, and even a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What was the commentator have been thinking? That Fritz, in 2025, was a serious threat to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate commenting on the continuing slump of American men lifting major titles when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just too much and the appreciation for the magnitude of the challenge insufficient.

Fritz’s play in that exact quarter-final should have been enough of an sign. Djokovic triumphed in four sets, a win that only felt tenuous for brief periods towards the conclusion, when the American had survived a few match points and had a opportunity to maintain serve for 5-5. The duo looked well-balanced during the rallies, with Fritz earning numerous chances to win the opponent's serve. But the champion saved service break opportunity after break point, extending the run to the brink of agony. When Fritz eventually 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; the Serbian had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and forced him to expend far too much energy to prevail. Down set points in the final game, Fritz’s primary delivery sailed to heaven. He prolonged the match two times on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a choke, in my opinion, only a consequence of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was quite compelling proof that Fritz is not good enough to defeat any form of Djokovic, who was defeated by the Spaniard in the following match and never particularly seem like he thought he could triumph. This is absolutely fine – Djokovic is the best player ever, and might not be at the peak of his physical powers now, but has acquired enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to compensate for a significant portion of the decline. The problem is those who were expecting the American to win, and putting pressure on him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that suggested he would.

Fritz is an valuable contributor to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a calm, reflective presence in press conferences, more so than almost anyone on the ATP except for the Russian star, prepared to not only say how he feels or the strategy he felt decided a match, but clarify it. That he should bear the brunt of the responsibility for America failing to produce a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist feels unfair. (Now that Ben Shelton is competing alongside him in the standings, maybe they can share that load.)

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