Mixed Doubles, the Open Age – and the Tennis Company

For a long time I wanted to write a blog post about the expression “the open era” – what it means and why it matters. I knew the basic principles, but something confused me – something that I had trouble articulating – and I thought I might not be alone in that feeling. US Open from this year, where Novak Djokovic, in the decreasing days of his career, will finally try to surpass the record of Margaret Court of 24 Grand Slam Singles titles, the perfect time to dig in.

But there is another open story from US Open that I want to write about: the new and very controversial mixed double -size. How can we ignore That Can slimy worms?

However, as I considered the choice, it penetrated me: these are not different topics at all. So happy us, we can tackle both in one bloated blog post. (Do not give me the eyeroll. FOCUSS Due to long boring lectures, helps to ward off dementia. You will thank me when you are older.)

As you probably already know, the open era started in 1968 when the major tournaments opened their trek for professional tennis players. Before 1968 only amateurs were allowed to play. Because of this distinction, the record of Margaret Court of 24 Majors, usually reached in the pre-open era, has always been a little sus, as the children like to say. When people talk about the goats tennis, they are talking about Serena Williams (on 23 Majors) and Djokovic (on 24). The court does not enter the conversation.

Yet today’s goats crave the distinction to keep the record downright, without being “in the open era” reservation at the end.

That is all fairly simple, but this is what I could never understand. Why Were professionals banned from the Majors? How is that logical? Why would you want a tournament of only amateurs? And how can such a tournament be considered more prestigious than one with real professionals in the draw?

Some of my confusion stemmed from the fact that the word ‘amateur’ in modern use ‘transmits less competent’. Or even smiling Andskilled, as in ‘Amateuruur’. Even me, a low 3.5-rated player, could call myself an amateur, and I have no things participating in a local club tournament, let alone Wimbledon.

That is not who these amateur players from the pre-open era were. At the time, amateur simply meant unpaid. You could be an amateur and still be damn good. Rod Laver won a calendar year Grand Slam as an amateur in 1962 before he repeated the performance as a professional in 1969.

That still leaves the question about why Majors wanted to forbid people who earned money by playing tennis.

That part comes from the history of tennis as a sport of the top crust. Under the elite, Sport was romantized as a noble striving for excellence that took place on a honorary time and fair play. Playing for money seemed ideal in contrast to this thin.

It is easy to reject those worries as a elitist, and undoubtedly there was a certain Snobbery classes in the game, a desire to only socialize with “our species”. However, I would claim that there is a substantiation of the truth. Participants in every game can make it less than honest. That is just an unfortunate human nature.

And once money is at stake, once the sport becomes business, the financial pressure can change the sport itself. As a rule of changes that are designed to speed up baseball or to increase scoring in basketball. And in tennis it is clear in the long decline – and now the possible revival – of Doubles.

The open era of tennis business stimulates television covering for the biggest stars, the singles players, making it difficult for viewers to even find a double match to watch. In an independent cycle, less coverage means that the public is less familiar with double specialists, which means that the demand for their competitions is further fallen. When you finally catch a television match, the stands are disturbingly empty.

A recent approach to draw more attention to doubles relates to shortening the competitions due to a combination of no-ad score and a 10-point tiebreak instead of a third set. I never understood the logic behind this movement. The discipline did not struggle because it was slow. It was difficult because the stars were missing. Dubble players even give less air time, only worsens the problem.

The new US Open Mixed Doubles – format finally seems to focus the heart of the problem – lack of familiarity with the players – but in a very controversial way, namely by excluding those unknown players. For those who missed it, the new format completely ignored the rankings to find out the draw. Instead, the USTA Singles players invited to link. Sixteen pairs were then selected, eight based on the combined ranking of the players in Singles and eight chosen by Wildcard. In other words, participants in a Grand Slam Mixed Doubles tournament did not even have to have played twice in the past year – or ever – To get a place at the table. In the meantime, the vast majority of double specialists were excluded.

There is so much wrong here, it hurts my head. Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori, the only double specialists in the entire draw, eventually had the upper hand, eliminated their famous, but in-in-elxpericed opponents and defended their title 2024. Although undoubtedly excited with a salary five times Bigger than last year, they made an opportunity on stage to express the collective indignation of their doubles colleagues, and say that their triumph is for everyone who was not allowed to play.

Measured in financial terms, which I think is the only way to be measured more, the new format was a resounding success. Every chair in Arthur Ashe Stadium was filled for a double game, an unprecedented turnout. There is now the expansion of this format to the other Majors.

I admit that the new format was entertaining, although the quality of playing sometimes was missing. But I wonder if there was no way to increase the profile of double specialists – to make them bankable stars, or even only well -known names, instead of moving them. Could the USTA not have invested in a promotional hype? Held an exhibition of Singles star versus DoublesSpecialists, with everyone who is aware? Advertised on the PickleBall -channel, where doubles already rule? But instead of investing in Doubles, the administrative bodies of the sport left the discipline away to yearn, and ‘repaired’ it by first cutting off the competition time and then finally the athletes who have devoted themselves to it. We have essentially assumed a pre-open policy for closed door based on class to closing players based on popularity.

However, it must also be said that I can withstand change. I moaned about the elimination of line judges and the loss of all the drama that the challenge system offers – and now I don’t think about it at all. I also hit my hands over the withdrawal of the rule without coaching, but now all the fuss about clandestine hand signals seem downright strange. A year from now on I may find myself a full -length endorser of the renewed mixed doubles. Undoubtedly, Errani and Vavassori now have a much larger fan base than before, and perhaps the audience will grow for competitions with real doubles specialists. If that is the case – if we finally see more real doubles on television – I will like to eat my words.