American 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 the American player during the US Open last eight. Look – Fritz is the United States, Fowler is American – and athletic competitions often lend themselves to nationalism. Some letdown would have been appropriate. Instead, he brought up the continued drought of American men at the majors: none of them has won a title since the last American champion in 2003, and Fritz had been the final representative in the tournament.

We all love a storyline, myself included. But come on. Suppose the American had beaten Djokovic for the first time, force of nature the Spanish star was looming in the following match, whom he has yet to beat in an competitive encounter. And if he’d someway gotten past that, it would have been title holder the Italian, against whom the American had dropped 10 of the previous eleven sets. The two young stars had also split the previous seven major titles (and Alcaraz proceeded to thrash a tired Djokovic in the next round). He said in post-match interviews following his defeat that he actually liked his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the top three competitors in the world in succession. Fritz is more than within his right to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to have faith in themselves. But entering that Djokovic quarter-final what other person in their right mind had the lack of American champions in mind?

The American, twenty-eight, is ranked number four in the global rankings entering this week’s ATP World Tour Finals and has won his previous six encounters over No 3 the German with increasing ease. Presumably he could take that spot for himself in the future. But it’s clear that right now, that is as high as he can rise: Sinner and Alcaraz lie a vast gap of performance metrics away. Fritz’s top-class serve and concussive strength on both forehand and backhand are sufficiently adequate to defeat most rivals on the ATP tour. Against the select few generational talents, however, Fritz is often overmatched. The last several seasons has seen the interesting emergence of tall, gangly players who can nonetheless cover the court with the surprising speed and fluidity of smaller players. Fritz is six-foot-five and appears that way. His movement is stiff, as if he’s still getting used to his legs. So he’ll rarely steal a point that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a drop shot versus him is usually a reliable tactic. That serves as a quite harsh limitation on his upside.

The American has made a several dramatic, unexpected advancements over the years. Early on of the decade, he was hovering around the lower end of the top 30. Two years after, he was approaching the elite ten. The previous season, he suddenly surged to fourth place – and maintained the position. But the next leap, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like Alcaraz, the Italian, and including a declining Serbian, is the highest of all. What was Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to defeat them all back-to-back? That it was worth commenting on the continuing drought of American men winning grand slams when Fritz had departed the New York major in the quarter-finals? The desperation is just excessive and the respect for the difficulty of the task too little.

Fritz’s play in that exact last eight match should have been sufficient of an sign. Djokovic won in four rounds, a win that only seemed uncertain for brief periods towards the very end, when Fritz had saved a couple match points and had a opportunity to hold for 5-5. The duo looked well-balanced during the rallies, with the American earning plenty of opportunities to win the opponent's serve. But the champion saved break point after service break opportunity, extending the streak to the brink of frustration. When he eventually did convert one of the chances at 5-5 in the second set, he promptly produced a horrendous game to lose his own serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a skirmish secondary to the main contest and forced him to use far too much energy to prevail. Facing match points in the final game, his primary delivery floated to the sky. He prolonged the contest two times on his backup delivery, but ultimately committed two errors. It was not a collapse, I didn’t think, only a consequence of needing to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was quite compelling evidence that the American is not good enough to beat any form of Djokovic, that lost to Alcaraz in the following match and did not particularly seem like he believed he could win. This is perfectly fine – Djokovic is the best player ever, and may not be at the peak of his physical powers anymore, but has acquired enough knowledge and strategic intelligence to make up for quite a bit of the drop-off. The problem is the individuals who were anticipating Fritz to prevail, and pressuring him to achieve that, when he was had not done anything that indicated he could.

Fritz is an valuable contributor to the tour nonetheless. He’s a calm, thoughtful presence in press conferences, exceeding almost anyone on the ATP aside from the Russian star, prepared to not just express how he feels or the tactic he believed determined a match, but clarify it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the United States failing to spawn a men's grand slam winner since Andy Roddick feels unfair. (Now that the fellow American is competing alongside him in the standings, perhaps they can divide that load.)

“I would likely dwell on it indefinitely if I fail to accomplish it,” Fritz informed an interviewer in June of winning a grand slam. I hope he understands that he’s not unsuccessful if he doesn’t achieve that goal, that overcoming Alcaraz and Sinner’s dominant, formidable reign is actually extremely unlikely for everybody else. {