Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 166, 13 July 1907, Page 12

2F w&

Some write a neighbour's name to lasa; Some write — vain thought — for needful cash. Some write to please the conntry clash, i And raise a din. .Tor mc, an aim I never fash— I \stite for fun.

Talking about sport, and more es- ; petaally British sport, I can't help remarking that England's star seems to be declining toward the horizon just now. In two successive seasons the British Xsies have lost their football Ireputation at the hands of the All-Blacka, and the Springboks. This year they have lost championship honours in two other games that they have hitherto as their own special property —lawn tennis and "the other tennis." It is certainly a great feat for two colonials ■to go Home, and in spite of the differences in light, climate, and general conditions, to win the All-England Single and Double Championships, as Brookes and Wilding have done. And it would have been even more entertaining if the English holders of these -championships had appeared to fight for their honours. So far as the doubles were concerned, it couldn't he helped; for Eiseley has been ill ever since, last season, and Smith cojold not get away from bti-siness. But with H. L. Doherty" it is different. That agile yousg man has his time to himself pretty well, and he has been "spending a good deal of it during the early months .of the year at the splendid courts in the ■ Riviera. But when he was asked what ihe was going to do aiout the championship, ne said he didn't think he would play this year. Was he ill? Oh dear no —'splendid health, thank you. Wasn't he in good condition, or in good form? Certainly, never better. Then why?— "Oh, well you see, I don't feel so about lawn tennis as I did. I just- think ■I'll drop it for the year." ********** It is a great consolation to find that not all English champions hold, their reputation so cheap; as witness the following. A few -weeks ago young Jay Gould came across the Atlantic to play in the '"real" tennis championships; and he beat everybody he met. Then he expected to play Eustace Miles, the celebrated vegetarian journalist, who has been amateur tennis champion for some years. But Miles had been so busy that he had. no time to train or practice, and so he decided not to play. Then Gould naturally expressed his disappointment; so Miles, for the sake of the game, and the credit of his country, played the young man (Gould is only half Miles' age), got beaten, and publicly assured everybody that Gould did not beat him on superior condition. Now, I call that "sporting." How does Doherty stand in the light of Miles' exploit? It is a painful subject; but it is not by any means the only piece of evidence I could quote to show that some of the best traditions of sport are dying out rather fast in certain quarters at Home.

WWWWt While I am talking about sport, and more especially about tennis, 1 will just mention a prophecy that appeaared in England about the lawn tennis championships three years ago. In "Modern Lawn Tennis," a book written in 1904, the author states that he could pick a team of Australasian players who, with a few weeks' acclimatising and tournament practice, would give any All - England team all the tennis they wanted. The tennis authorities at Home laughed loudly over this; and I well remember my wrath on seeing it stated in a leading English sporting paper that no colonial lawn tennis player was better than a poor second-rater like F. W. Payn. Then came the 1905 tournament, in which Brookes and, to a lesser degree, Wilding and Parker and Dunlop, opened the eyes of the lawn tennis world to the possibilities of colonial play. But our prophet was not satisfied yet. In 1906 he published a "lawn Tennis Guide," in which he repeated the severe criticism of the Doherty methods and the English grip that had roused so much hostility against trim before, and ne assured his readers that unless English players would study 'American and colonial strokes and tactics they would speedily lose their laurels. Again, the wiseacres at Home laughed loud and long; but what do we see to-day? A Victorian has won the Men's Singles Championship; a Victorian and a New Zealander (who has already beaten nearly everyone worth playing in England) have won the Men's Doubles; and an American girl has carried off the Ladies' Singles. What do you think of that for a prophecy? And yet when it was first laid before an intelligent British public three years ago, it only provoked derision. By the way, I almost forgot to remark that the successful prophet was Mr P. A. Vaile-

********** I think I mentioned Eustace Miles when I was talking aoout that "other tennis" match. Now, he is a vegetarian, and so he made mc think a-bout other vegetarians; and. that is how I came to remember the following little anecdote. Inhere are lots of people in the world rwho can't take their food quietly—l mean in the metaphorical sense—but want to make a religion of it Well, at iYale University a distinguished advocate of vegetarianism, has been experimenting on a number of young men as to iheir athletic capacity when fed on meat or otherwise. Aβ it happened, the vegetarians won; but I don't mind that. ,"What I am concerned about is the enormous enthusiasm generated by some of these victims of the""higher life" in their effort to prove their case. One man after "knee-bending-" , two hundred and fifty-four times could not get up again, ihad to be carried downstairs, and was incapacitated for several days. Another fainted after five hundred and two "kneemendings," and his condition was so .serious'as to alarm his doctor for -the nest two weeks. And the report teems ;wi±fl description of the anguish endured iby men striving to hoid out a weight at arm's length for hours, or to double themselves into inextricable knots an indefinite number "of times. Now I call f.>ii«; a little too much of a good thing. I regard meat-ea-ting as a great mistake ;when carried to excess. But is it necessary to confute the advocates of meat by Tnfiir-frrmr torture of this sort on one's own proper person? If so, I must humbly remain carnivorous. But, c oh! Vege- . fcarianism!" (as the iFnaichman. remarkpd about the EfipolatioiL), "vAub erils <annnftte& in grg name£"