Britons Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu to face each other in US Open doubles
The mixed doubles has been moved to before the main tournament on August 19 and 20, with one million dollars (£750,000) in prize money at stake for the winners of the 16-pair event.
Draper will play with American Jessica Pegula after their original partners, Paula Badosa and Tommy Paul, both withdrew.
With both inside the top five in the singles rankings, the pair have been handed the top seeding and will kick off their campaign against wild card pair Raducanu and Carlos Alcaraz.
The winners could face 24-time grand slam champion Novak Djokovic and his partner Olga Danilovic if the Serbian pair overcome Mirra Andreeva and Daniil Medvedev.
Venus Williams, at the age of 45, faces Karolina Muchova and Andrey Rublev alongside compatriot Reilly Opelka.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why controversial US Open mixed doubles event is not worthy of Grand Slam status
With more than 1,000 professional matches to his name, Jamie Murray has seen it all in 20 years of professional tennis. A doubles specialist from the get-go, the elder Murray brother holds the impressive record of the most mixed doubles grand slam titles out of any active player on tour. That's five in total, including three consecutive mixed doubles triumphs at the US Open from 2017-2019. But this year, with the introduction of a revamped mixed doubles event starting on Tuesday in New York, Murray and many more doubles players alike have been robbed of the opportunity to compete for a prestigious title. The controversial, 16-pair event sees a host of top singles players compete in a quickfire format on the two main show courts at Flushing Meadows. Among the star-studded pairs are Carlos Alcaraz and Emma Raducanu, Jack Draper and Jessica Pegula and Naomi Osaka and Gael Monfils – all competing for a prize of $1m for the winning team, an increase of $800,000 from 2024. 'People are obviously excited, because it's the best men and women on court together, which is a cool product,' 39-year-old Murray told The Independent, last month at Wimbledon. 'But a lot of doubles players are annoyed. The prize money gap is so big because that money is going to the very top end of the game. Of course, they deserve it, but it's like 'come on, give us a chance to win.' It's only four times a year we get to play mixed doubles.' When this new-look competition – moved from the US Open's final week to qualifying week – was announced in February, the exciting prospect of the world's top male and female players competing alongside one another was quickly matched by uproar among doubles specialists. Defending champions Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori of Italy – the only doubles-specialist pair in this year's draw, courtesy of a wild card pick – labelled the radical changes a 'profound injustice' in a joint statement, while former doubles world No 1 Kristina Mladenovic decreed the event a 'super exhibition.' US OPEN 2025 - MIXED DOUBLES DRAW As for Wimbledon mixed doubles champion Sem Verbeek, unable to target consecutive titles in New York, he was rather more sombre: 'As a doubles athlete, my heart is bleeding.' Ironically, his partner Katerina Siniakova is a late replacement and is set to partner Jannik Sinner. The disregard for doubles specialists was evident from day-dot. Eight teams have been decided by their combined singles ranking, while the other eight have been chosen by a wild card committee. Aside from Errani and Vavassori, no pairs of doubles specialists have been included. 'They're trying to merge sports and entertainment together and I'm sure it will be a success,' Murray added, summarising the two main gripes of the doubles locker-room. 'But I think for a lot of doubles players, there's a feeling that this money could have gone to the wider player group, rather than to the stars who are already being paid a fortune. 'It's taken away both a potential earning opportunity and a chance to win a Grand Slam.' Away from financial exasperation, it's difficult to shake the thought that this event has the feel of an exhibition, not unlike previous editions of 'Fan Week' on Arthur Ashe Stadium prior to the official US Open start date, and in deep contrast to the tradition and prestige which usually is the hallmark of any Grand Slam event. Four rounds over two days will see a quickfire scoring system being used: best-of-three sets, first-to-four games, with sudden death deuce, a tiebreak at 4-4 and a 10-point championship tie-break instead of a third set. The final will be the same, but with normal six-game sets instead. 'It's a shame that the format is very short and the draw is really diminished,' says world No 5 doubles player Henry Patten, last year's Wimbledon champion, who repeats Murray's criticisms, while also acknowledging that the event will be a 'massive success.' He adds: 'I don't know why they didn't just do the event anyway and keep the mixed doubles separate. I think to be calling it a Grand Slam is ridiculous.' Recent withdrawals and scheduling concerns play strongly to this theory. American stars Coco Gauff, Emma Navarro and Tommy Paul have all withdrawn in recent days, as has world No 1 Aryna Sabalenka. And as for Alcaraz and Sinner – the two biggest draws – their participation is in doubt given they contest the final of the Cincinnati Open at 3pm ET on Monday, less than 24 hours before both would be expected on court in the Big Apple. Wimbledon champion Iga Swiatek has an even worse turnaround, playing in Cincinnati at 6pm ET tonight and scheduled to be on Arthur Ashe at midday on Tuesday. Eighteen hours (probably less) to play a singles final, cool-down, fulfil media commitments, fly two hours to New York and be present on-site at Flushing Meadows to play potentially two matches in a day. It feels somewhat farcical. Yet the actual product will be fascinating viewing. How seriously will it actually be taken? Most players will have their main sights set on the singles tournament, starting on Sunday, but the staggering prize pot means matches will undoubtedly be competitive. The final is effectively a $600,000 contest, $300,000 per player. Added to that, the concept of top men's and women's players competing on the same court is one underutilised in professional tennis, given its unique selling point in comparison to other sports. On this, the executives at the US Open have made a bold, innovative change, with thousands of spectators expected to attend in a week which would usually see sparse crowds across Flushing Meadows. Yet to call it a genuine Grand Slam title, written into the history books despite the obvious pitfalls, feels disingenuous. 'I just don't see why they couldn't have had both this as an event and still have the main mixed doubles,' Murray sums up. 'All the conditions are changed to get the stars' buy-in and sign-up. If they made it three or four days, they were not going to play. 'Do I think it's worthy of a Grand Slam title? Absolutely not.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The $1m tournament plagued by partner-swapping and pull-outs: Inside the US Open's mixed doubles mess - with Emma Raducanu at risk of being dumped by Carlos Alcaraz
When the US Open's souped-up, $1million mixed doubles event was announced, it was greeted with wails of anger; when the field was unveiled there were squeals of excitement; now the jamboree is getting underway, the rising of the curtain is in danger of being greeted by a shrug of indifference. From a British point of view - and for most of the world, actually - the most greedily awaited partnership was Emma Raducanu and Carlos Alcaraz. Aside from about a romantic involvement, they are two of the most famous players in the world and seeing how they interact on court will be fascinating. The problem is, that 'will' should probably be 'would'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Racing strike leads to battle lines being drawn in bitter dispute over tax reforms
Two days on from the out-of-the-blue announcement that British racing will strike on 10 September, the widespread media exposure that the move has received may already be worth significantly more than the loss to sport from cancelling low-key meetings at Kempton, Lingfield, Carlisle and Uttoxeter, on an afternoon when most punters are looking 24 hours ahead to the St Leger meeting at Doncaster. As a result, there is a raised awareness of the deep concerns about government plans to 'harmonise' the duty rates for online betting and casino-style gaming products, which could, according to modelling commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority, cost the sport between £66 and £160m in annual income. There will be further coverage on the day itself to add to the balance sheet, the races concerned will be restaged at other meetings to minimise the loss of media rights income, and the degree of cooperation required between the BHA and racing's two biggest racecourse ownership groups is also a positive for the sport. The response of the main industry body, the Betting and Gaming Council, to the news was instructive, too. 'Racing's decision to reschedule fixtures was taken without consultation with betting operators, whose support for the funding of the sport is mission critical,' the BGC said on Sunday. 'We are concerned that futile political gestures will only antagonise the government and frustrate punters, instead of delivering a solution to a shared challenge facing both racing and betting.' This followed hot on the heels of a suggestion by Michael Dugher, the BGC's chair, in a column in the Racing Post that 'any increase in costs gets passed on not just to the sport, through reduced spend on sponsorship, but also punters. That might mean worse odds, fewer offers, less generous promotions'. The same column also included perhaps the most absurd sentence to appear in the pages of the sport's trade paper since Fred Done, the chair of BetFred, suggested that cutting the maximum stake on roulette machines in betting shops from £100-a-spin to £2 could force him to close his entire high-street estate. 'Additionally,' Dugher wrote, 'the idea that betting on horseracing is purely a game of 'skill' and not also a game of 'chance' is nonsense. How many punters back a horse because they like the name or the colours? If betting on horses were purely a game of skill, how is it that a 150-1 shot wins a Group 1 at Goodwood?' Brighton 2.15 Twist Or Stick 2.45 Bee My Honey 3.15 Angel On High 3.45 Beautiful Dawn (nap) 4.15 Bear To Dream 4.45 Dandy G Boy Kempton 2.30 Della Pace 3.00 Allegresse 3.30 Tronido 4.00 Tennessee Gold 4.30 Uzincso 5.05 Fort Augustus Chepstow 5.30 Berlinetta 6.00 Queen Tamara 6.30 Savannah Smiles 7.00 You Are Everything 7.30 Jenni 8.00 Ravenglass Wolverhampton 6.10 Hayynah 6.40 Sporting Light 7.10 Dream Illusion 7.40 Sam's Hope 8.10 Glory Hyde (nb) 8.40 Team Player The weasel-word here is 'purely', because as far as I am aware, no one in racing has ever, or would ever, claim that betting is 'purely a game of skill'. Instead, skill is an essential element of the process. Every horse has its chance and its price, and the skill lies in judging one against the other. It is, in fact, the complete absence of skill in gaming that is one of the fundamental differences between the two. Taken as a whole, the BGC's response to racing's 'strike' action is informative, because it should leave no-one in racing with any lingering doubt that those traditional betting brands that many still think of as 'the bookies' are now just subsidiaries of global gambling operators, whose primary concern is the risk-free profits from fixed-margin gaming. The BGC wants racing to argue for no change at all – ie. 15% duty on betting and 21% on gaming – when that is the one thing that is almost certainly not going to happen. The government needs funds, the Treasury has already consulted on 'harmonisation' and gambling revenue is a blindingly obvious target for a tax hike. Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion As a result, and as the debate over gambling duty rolls on towards the autumn budgets, the realistic best-case and worst-case scenarios for racing and the gambling industry are almost precisely opposed. For racing, any 'harmonisation' of duty, whatever the chosen rate, is the worst-case outcome, because it not only costs the sport revenue, but increases the incentive for operators to prioritise their gaming business in the longer term. The realistic best-case outcome, despite the sport's current calls to 'Axe the Racing Tax' completely, is probably a small rise in betting duty – perhaps alongside possible reform of the Levy to ease some of the pain – and a much more significant hike in the rate for gaming, to reflect the increased risk of gambling-related harm. The gambling industry would see harmonisation at either 21% or 25% as a huge let-off. It is the thought of a possible rise in gaming duty – perhaps to the rate of 40% or more that they willingly pay to access gaming markets elsewhere – that is keeping their CEOs awake at night. Racing's strike next month will not tip the balance one way or the other, but it is a long way from being the 'futile political gesture' that the BGC would have you believe. And if that organisation's chair thinks that a pacemaker getting loose on the lead in the Sussex Stakes means racing is little different from roulette, it is conceivably a sign that they are starting to feel the heat.
