In the weeks leading up to the season’s final Grand Slam at the US Open, patriotism is often at its highest among American tennis fans. It’s the time when we really root for American players to do well in hopes they can win a major title on home soil. But ever since Andy Roddick had his run 10 years ago, there hasn’t been much to hope for in American men lately.

John Isner stood as the only American male in the Rogers Masters in Montreal this week, but Canadian wildcard Vasek Pospisil booted him out in the first round, sending Isner back to the USA to contemplate the future of American tennis. But as disappointing as this result is, American tennis fans should take it easy on the “Iron Man.” He’s the best player we’ve got. And what he could most certainly use right now is our support, not our disdain.

I’ll take it even further and say, what Isner really needs is for his compatriots to unite behind him in the same way the Brits blindly invested their hopes in Andy Murray when he emerged on the scene. This safety net, if you will, would give Isner the strength to bear the heavy burden of Old Glory, because, make no mistake about it, it’s rough out there.

Ever since the dearth of American slam contenders took hold of the national psyche in the mid-‘00s, fickle fans have capriciously divided their enthusiasm amongst a multitude of players. After a string of lackluster results from Roddick – post his US Open win in 2003 – many disillusioned patriots began to look to anyone but Roddick to be the flag bearer, even though he was always our best chance at winning a big one (after the Sampras/Agassi era of American dominance, that is.)

Sadly, this trend continues today, with Roddick almost a year into retirement and with an effect that has been disastrous to all interested parties. I, myself, have been guilty at times. (Who’s it gonna be? James Blake?  Mardy Fish ? Sam Querrey? Ryan Harrison…?)

Now I can already hear the dissenters crying, how dare you put John Isner and Andy Murray on equal footing in the same sentence? One is a Grand Slam champion. The other has never gotten past the quarterfinals of a major championship. Their talent levels are as far apart as their respective heights. (Murray is a relative dwarf at 6-foot-3, compared to Isner’s 6-foot-10 hulking frame.) But to me, this argument is a cop-out.

Of course, today we all agree, Andy Murray is a great champion, but the Wimbledon trophy didn’t just fall into his lap. He slowly improved.

It took him four years of full-time play on the ATP tour to crack the top 10 in the world. And he toiled for years after that to get where he is today. He’s been through a score of coaches and trainers. He endured unfathomable pressure (unless you are a pro soccer goalie) from the British press corps. He had to suck up five (that is F-I-V-E) Grand Slam final losses. But with a ton of unified support from the LTA and Great Britain, he was able to rise to the challenge and exceed expectations.

In this respect, Isner hasn’t been as fortunate, in part, due to circumstances beyond his control. To begin with, he got a later start at the game. Murray’s mother put a racquet in his hand when he was three years old. Isner, on the other hand, didn’t begin playing until he was nine. Also, Isner went to college, graduating from the University of Georgia in 2007, an achievement every American should applaud, but significantly delayed his professional tennis career several years.

Another obstacle that many experts point to as a critical flaw that has stunted Isner’s potential (not unlike Roddick’s) is his movement. Put simply, it’s hard to move around when you’re that tall. But Murray certainly had/has his technical difficulties with his serve. And isn’t it the mark of every great champion to overcome their weaknesses? After his unforgettable performance at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships when he won the longest professional tennis match in history, after 11-and-a-half hours, who can ever doubt John Isner’s strength and determination?

That said, of course, I’m not blind to the fact that there are obvious tangible differences that certainly separate the careers of these two players, at this point.

For example, it took three years of full-time play for Murray to reach his first major quarterfinal, whereas it took Isner four. And whereas Murray has won 28 career singles titles, Isner has won a mere 7. And of course let’s not forget age, the enemy of all athletes. Murray is in his prime at 26, while Isner is two years his senior, all of which would count as multiple strikes against the American in a head-to-head against the Brit on court. But to compare this data and weigh it against the potential achievement of an ambitious athlete still improving, still striving, still building his fan base, it would be a terrible mistake.

Better, instead, to look at the remarkable opportunity Isner has to defy the odds, Jimmy Connors style. This mentality is contagious and, I believe, just what the Iron Man needs right now (aside from maybe a larger racquet) to hoist Old Glory at one of the big ones.

And if he should fail?

So be it. Rooting for a losing team doesn’t make you any less of a person, which is why I still keep rooting for the Mets.

Nate Chura is a New York tennis professional and journalist. He covers the US Open for WNYC radio.