Trust the process: Ben Shelton will be back after US Open loss — even as drought continues
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Ben Shelton of the United States lost the U.S. Open men's singles final, his first Grand Slam final, to Alexander Zverev of Germany in four sets, 6-3, 7-6 (2), 5-7, 6-2, at Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York. The victory was Zverev's second career Grand Slam title. No American man has won a Grand Slam singles title since Andy Roddick at the 2003 U.S. Open. Shelton, 23, had beaten Carlos Alcaraz and Frances Tiafoe to reach the final and moved to No. 4 in the world rankings; he told reporters he was disappointed with how the day went but excited about his progress, saying the loss "stings 100 percent."
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Ben Shelton
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 14, 05:42 UTC by New York Post, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Readers of right-leaning coverage never learn that Shelton had already beaten Alcaraz at this Open, only that he remains far from the sport's top group. Left-leaning coverage in the Guardian puts that win on the road to the final and notes he will jump to world No. 4. The omitted result is what decides whether Sunday looks like a ceiling. With it, the same loss looks like a setback for a player already mixing with the elite.
Right-leaning coverage calls the defeat "one-sided." Left-leaning coverage instead walks through the American winning a set and the New York crowd trying to lift him once his serve had gone.
Why has a second straight American in the US Open final still not been enough?
Bottom line
The Post wrote Sunday as a kid with no Plan B against the top names and never mentioned he had already beaten Alcaraz at the same Open, a result only the Guardian put in the story.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Final score was 6-3, 7-6 (2), 5-7, 6-2
- American men's Grand Slam drought is 92 straight
- Zverev won the title without facing Sinner or Alcaraz
- American women have won six US Open singles titles since Roddick's 2003 win
The Left View
The Guardian frames the defeat as evidence that "the drought abides," with U.S. men still without a major since 2003 "despite Shelton's heroics." It embeds the match in a longer arc of unmet hopes after Roddick—through Mardy Fish, John Isner, and Jack Sock—and notes that American women have won six U.S. Open singles titles over the same span, while Roddick has said he hates that the drought remains a talking point for players and commentators. The paper dwells on Shelton's "hangdog expression," partisan "USA!" chants that could not restore "the aura," and a third-set point after which he "lay slapping the ground" as "23 years of US frustration came into sharp relief." It credits an upgraded backhand and four titles this year and quotes Zverev betting that Shelton would "lift this trophy one day," but concludes that while Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz sit at the top and Zverev is "entrenched just below," the drought continues.
The Right View
The New York Post urges readers to "trust the process," arguing that Shelton's run showed he "might be the best suited" to end a drought it counts as "92 straight, 24 years and counting." It describes the loss as "one-sided" and as showing "how far he is from cracking into tennis' new Big Three" and from having "a viable Plan B" when he lacks his A game. It quotes Shelton as motivated, happy with how he fought over the two weeks, and determined to "keep getting better and show up in Australia even stronger than I showed up here."
Our Take (balanced)
The Guardian's strongest argument is that even a homegrown finalist's "heroics" did not dent a drought it says still "abides" so long as Sinner, Alcaraz, and Zverev occupy the top, a claim it supports with the vanished "aura" and a crowd that could not lift Shelton. The Post's strongest argument is that a 23-year-old now ranked No. 4 after his first major final is the American best positioned to end the streak, grounded in his stated intent to return stronger in Australia and in the paper's "trust the process" frame. The central unresolved tension is whether the result primarily confirms that the drought "abides" or primarily shows that continued improvement is the right reading of the same weekend.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.