Singles success is the yardstick in tennis

EVERY SPORT tries to optimise its viewership and revenue.

- Tushar Bhaduri

If it's lagging behind on those parameters, the administrators usually step in and the solution may often lie outside the box.

The changes to the mixed doubles competition at the final tennis Grand Slam tournament of the year, the US Open, has prompted plenty of debate, with some calling it a 'glorified exhibition' and an insult to a large number of players who make their living from that discipline.

The United States Tennis Association (USTA)—who came up with the idea of a two-day competition in the week before the main tournament, attracting marquee singles players with a shorter format before the final, smaller draw and a multi-fold increase in prize money—would argue that with the continuing drop in spectator interest when the mixed doubles event was almost an appendage to the main show, something drastic needed to be done, and the format deserved better than to be played before half-empty stands at odd hours, even at the business end.

By that yardstick, the revamped US Open mixed doubles—which ironically saw Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori, the defending champions and the only bona fide doubles pairing in fray, walking away with the $1 million first prize cheque—was a big success. The Arthur Ashe stadium court, with a spectator capacity of 23,000, was almost packed to see the Italians edge past six-time Grand Slam singles champion Iga Swiatek and three-time singles Major finalist Casper Ruud in the final.

Throughout the calendar year, mixed doubles is only played at the Grand Slams, often before or after big singles matches, and is usually a sideshow and an afterthought. As a result, doubles practitioners rarely capture the public imagination.