ANALYSIS: Jury out on whether US Open mixed doubles was a success, champions validate that doubles should be left with specialists

The revamped mixed doubles has taken place these last couple of days at Flushing Meadows, with contrasting opinions on the controversial event. With many of the top singles players in the world competing, it was likely to be a hugely competitive field with a lot of entertainment and drama for the onlooking fans to enjoy. In the end, the only pair who were natural doubles players won - the Italian duo Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori.

They finished on the top step for the pair's consecutive US Open triumph, to add to the Roland Garros title they claimed earlier this year. Nonetheless, the pair were not happy with the format of the new event, criticising the event before, during, and after they had won it, with a focus on the specialist double players who missed out.

The mixed doubles had been a staple on the Grand Slam calendar for many years now. First being hosted at the US Open back in 1892, before the other tournaments were even created. Wimbledon joined the party in 1913 before the Australian Open held its first event in 1922 and Roland Garros in 1925, meaning this is the 100th anniversary of the first year the mixed doubles was played in every Grand Slam.

A century on, and the event is seen to be lacking the interest compared to singles. This motivated the US Open to create a separate mixed doubles event this year, as the normalised doubles pair were overlooked for the high ranking and more recognisable single stars to bring some of their fans over to watch.

Overall, it has to be said that the event was a success. Interest levels rose as more people were curious to see how these players would play together, which led to huge crowds on Arthur Ashe and Louis Armstrong over the two days. For the semi-final and final, over 23,000 people squeezed into the biggest tennis stadium in the world to follow the conclusion of this anticipated tournament. With this came the usual media buzz, and for months now, much gossip has been thrown around the tournament and the pairs. All of the questions were about to reveal themselves.

Finals day also saw some close battles. The first semi-final between Iga Swiatek and Casper Ruud against Jessica Pegula and Jack Draper went to a tiebreak decider, with Swiatek and Ruud scraping through. They managed to get a set off the reigning champions in the final as well, setting up a remarkably tense ending for the excited crowd.

Not only had the event skyrocketed through media and fan attention, but much was on offer to the players. An eye-watering $1 million was on stake for the victors, a massive jump up from the $200,000 offered before.

Despite all the positives about the tournament, there were many criticisms of the event. The main one, highlighted repeatedly by the winners Errani and Vavassori, was the lack of doubles duos who regularly compete on the tour being ostracized from the Grand Slam tournament. An unfair punishment and a huge opportunity missed for them. An example was the number one doubles player in the world, Katerina Siniakova. She had been penciled in to play alongside Jannik Sinner, but the Italian pulled out moments after his retirement in the Cincinnati Open final against Carlos Alcaraz. This left the best doubles player in the world out of the major doubles tournament.

In her winner's speech, Errani touched on this subject again, standing up for the doubles duos who should have been competing instead of watching from afar. She said: “I think this one is for all the doubles players that couldn’t play this tournament. I think this one is also for them.”

Along with that, there were many criticisms over how the event felt like an exhibition. Even semi-finalist Draper came out in his press conference to say this, but was shut down by his teammate. This was not helped by the revamped scoring system, with sets plummeting down to four games with no advantages if it reaches deuce, and tiebreaks as final set deciders. The new scoring system was implemented so more games could be fitted in. On the opening day of competition, every game was won 2-0, showing off a possible flaw of the scoring tally.

In conclusion, the event was a success from a spectator's, branding, and engagement point of view, with the organisers getting what they wanted. But if you delve into it deeper, there were lots of blemishes that exposed the event as just a way to earn more money and get more viewers/attention.

It should come as no shock that the only doubles partnership in the competition came out triumphant. Errani and Vavassori's win was a statement of intent for the best singles players that they cannot just come into their realm and expect to dominate and sweep them aside. In their four ties, they only dropped one set, which occurred in the final, before racking up an advantage in the deciding tiebreak that their opponents could not get close to.

They defeated the number two and three seeds in the event, dispossessing Taylor Fritz and Elena Rybakina with ease before making light work of Andrey Rublev and Karolina Muchova in the quarter-finals. It just took 44 minutes to dispose of Danielle Collins and Christian Harrison, before taking down Swiatek and Ruud in the final.

Interestingly, despite not being the most recognisable team, Collins and Harrison made it all the way to the semis. A large part of that would be down to Harrison specialising in doubles, giving them an extra advantage as they progressed through the rounds. This is extra proof that no matter how good a singles star you are, there is a high chance you will struggle to compete with the professionals.

It shows that while the organisers tried to put on an entertaining spectacle which would put the event firmly in mainstream media, it only solidifies Errani and Vavassori's arguments from the start: do not shut out double specialists from double events.