US Male Major Title Dry Spell Isn't Taylor Fritz's Burden to Bear

I possess a few opinions about the comments delivered by the sports network broadcaster Chris Fowler following the Serbian champion's win over the American player in the US Open quarter-finals. Look – Fritz is American, the commentator is American – and sports often lend themselves to nationalism. Some letdown was understandable. Instead, he invoked the ongoing absence of US male players at the majors: not one of them has won a trophy since Andy Roddick in 2003, and Fritz had been the last one standing in the tournament.

We all enjoy a storyline, me too. But come on. Suppose Fritz had beaten the legend for the initial occasion, force of nature the Spanish star was waiting in the next round, who he has never defeated in an official match. And had he somehow gotten past that, it would have been title holder the Italian, against whom Fritz had lost 10 of the last 11 sets. Alcaraz and Sinner had also divided the previous seven major titles (plus Alcaraz proceeded to defeat a tired Djokovic in the next round). Fritz stated in press following his defeat that he actually preferred his path, because it offered the chance to defeat the three best competitors in the world back-to-back. Fritz is more than within his right to aim for the accomplishment; an competitor is meant to believe in themselves. But going into that Djokovic quarter-final who else sensibly had the drought of American champions in mind?

The American, 28, is placed fourth in the global rankings starting the upcoming year-end championships and has won his previous six matches over third-ranked the German with growing comfort. Presumably he could claim that position for himself in the coming years. But evidently that at present, that’s as high as he can climb: The Italian and Spaniard sit a chasm of ranking points away. Fritz’s top-class serve and powerful power on both front side and backhand are sufficiently enough to dispose of the majority of opponents on the ATP tour. When facing the handful of generational talents, however, Fritz is frequently overmatched. The past few years has witnessed the interesting rise of lanky, towering players who can nevertheless cover the court with the surprising quickness and grace of smaller men. He is 6ft 5ins and looks it. His footwork is stiff, as if he hasn't fully adapted to his limbs. So he’ll rarely win a rally that the opponent was dictating, and hitting a soft shot versus him is typically a safe bet. That acts as a pretty harsh restriction on his upside.

The American has achieved a number of dramatic, unexpected advancements over the years. At the beginning of the decade, he was hovering around the bottom of the top 30. 24 months later, he was sniffing the top 10. The previous season, he suddenly exploded to fourth place – and maintained the spot. But the subsequent step, mixing it up with and beating legendary figures like the young Spaniard, Sinner, and even a declining Djokovic, is the toughest of all. What could Fowler thinking? That the American, in 2025, was a legitimate contender to beat them all back-to-back? That it was appropriate commenting on the ongoing drought of US male players lifting grand slams when Fritz had departed the US Open in the quarter-finals? The thirst is simply too much and the appreciation for the difficulty of the task insufficient.

The American's performance in that very quarter-final ought to have been enough of an indication. Djokovic triumphed in four sets, a win that only felt uncertain for moments towards the very end, when Fritz had saved a few championship opportunities and had a chance to hold for 5-5. The duo appeared evenly matched during the rallies, with Fritz earning plenty of chances to win the opponent's serve. But the champion rescued break point after break point, prolonging the streak to the point of frustration. When he finally did convert one of the opportunities at 5-5 in the middle stanza, he immediately produced a terrible game to drop serve again; the Serbian had drawn him into a skirmish peripheral to the real battle and compelled him to expend far too much effort to win it. Facing match points in the final game, his first serve floated to the sky. He prolonged the match twice on his backup delivery, but ultimately double-faulted. It wasn’t a collapse, I didn’t think, just a consequence of having to hit too many weaker deliveries.

The contest was quite compelling evidence that Fritz is insufficiently skilled to beat any version of the Serbian, that was defeated by Alcaraz in the next round and did not especially seem like he believed he could triumph. This is absolutely 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 tactical know-how to make up for a significant portion of the drop-off. The issue is those who were expecting the American to win, and pressuring him to do so, when he was yet to accomplished anything that suggested he would.

The American is an valuable contributor to the circuit nonetheless. He’s a calm, thoughtful presence in press conferences, more so than virtually everyone on the ATP except for Daniil Medvedev, prepared to not just express how he feels or the tactic he felt decided a contest, but explain it. That he ought to shoulder the majority of the blame for America failing to spawn a men's grand slam winner since the last American titlist seems unjust. (Now that the fellow American is rubbing shoulders with him in the standings, perhaps they can divide that burden.)

“I would likely dwell on it indefinitely if I don’t do it,” the American told a journalist in June of claiming a major. I hope he understands that he’s not a failure if he does not achieve that objective, that overcoming the Spanish and Italian's young, terrifying reign is in fact extremely improbable for everybody else. {