Every sport tries to optimise its viewership and revenue. 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. Gone are the days when the likes of John McEnroe used to regularly play singles and doubles. The hectic tour schedule and the relentless physical nature of the modern game makes it almost impossible.
At the Olympics, where mixed doubles has featured since London 2012, players team up with compatriots, with whom they don’t play regularly, in the quest of a coveted medal. But on the tour, doubles doesn’t quite capture the imagination of the big stars and the casual fans. Hence, the USTA’s latest initiative.
Great players adapt
But if singles stalwarts put their minds and energies into doubles, even for a limited period, chances of their success are considerable. Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka combined to win the men’s doubles gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Rafael Nadal won the men’s doubles gold at the 2016 Rio Olympics with Marc Lopez. Serena and Venus Williams won three Olympic gold medals in women’s doubles while at one time, holding the four Grand Slam titles simultaneously. It’s difficult to imagine a doubles specialist enjoying such success in singles.
Organising the mixed doubles competition as a standalone tournament also helped in the marketing and promotional side of matters, where they would have been shortchanged earlier. The shorter sets, best of four games with no advantage rule, cater to the diminishing attention span of the casual fan and reduce the chance of injury so close to a Grand Slam tournament.
But the reliance on singles superstars shows that it is the format that really matters for tennis immortality. Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, McEnroe, Chris Evert, Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, Steffi Graf, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic achieved their legendary status through excellence on the singles court. And though the likes of Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and the Williams sisters had their share of success in doubles, their stature is largely based on the number of singles Grand Slams they captured.
A 16-team draw largely made up of singles players may seem unfair to doubles specialists, but at the amateur level, the team format is used mainly for recreation and light exercise. Hardly any child aspiring to be a tennis player wants to be known only for his doubles prowess. It’s only later on when there’s realization that they may not get too far in singles or it’s too taxing on the body that they make the switch. The Bryan Brothers – the most successful men’s doubles team of all time – are an exception as they would have played together from a very young age.
Easy way out?
Over the last several years, Indian presence at Grand Slams has been almost exclusively in the doubles arena. Any rare singles appearance – Sumit Nagal is the only name that comes to mind – is limited to a round or two. Youngsters who show some promise also invariably gravitate towards doubles after a few injury setbacks or if they find the competition too tough. The disheartening thing is to see them become doubles experts without giving singles a proper go. Somewhere, it betrays a certain lack of ambition. It’s for this reason that someone like Somdev Devvarman garners respect, because he reached the 60s in the singles rankings and chose to retire when he couldn’t cut it any more, rather than elongating his career via doubles.
Men’s and women’s doubles are regular features on the tours, so they aren’t unlikely to be tampered with at the Grand Slams, and despite the encouraging response to the revamped mixed doubles tournament at the US Open, there doesn’t seem to be any immediate likelihood of the other three Major championships doing likewise, even though they would have been paying close attention to developments in New York. But it certainly poses some threat to the livelihood and income of those who play doubles exclusively. The lesson from recent events would be not to give up on singles altogether.
Indian angle
It’s important from the national perspective as well. Relying solely on doubles won’t get a country anywhere in international team competitions like the Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup. It has been a long time since India made any sort of impact in these tournaments, and the lack of quality in the singles field has been the biggest reason. Now, after the retirement of Mahesh Bhupathi, Leander Paes and Sania Mirza, and Rohan Bopanna coming to the end of his career, the optimism at the big tournaments extends to just winning a few rounds to cover the expenses. Being in the draw in both men’s (or women’s) and mixed doubles just extends their stay at a Grand Slam tournament. That they change partners on a tournament-to-tournament basis points to the ad-hoc nature of their careers.
At the basic level, tennis is an individual sport. That fact should never be forgotten. Even Errani, who won the US Open mixed doubles title recently, was once ranked as high as No.5 in singles and reached a Grand Slam final in singles, apart from advancing into the later rounds on other occasions.