TENNIS RANKING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 194, 17 August 1932, Page 9

TENNIS RANKING.

t NEW ZBA-tANP-i;:.'ia£S3Jj .• ' ; '. •• ' '" '" - : v ■•.^-.'••■■ : • AUCKLANDERS DOWN. (By Telegraph;— Special to "St&T.") . WELLINGTON, this day. For the first time since, the. NevrZe.aland Lawn Tennis Association began announcing • annual: ranking lists two Caterbury players fill first and second places in New Zealand's first ten. ~ : ..' : '■-.:'■/' The players areC. Angas; the'Neiv Zealand singles champion, and H. A. Barnett, the runner-up in the New Zealand singles at Auckland, and, apart from W. G. Robertson, who is rated as ninth player in New Zealand, they are the only representatives of their province on the list. Following them come N. E. C. Wilson, Ba-rtleet, D. ,G,,.France, Start, Court, A. L. Robertson and Stedman: The last-named achieves something like a record in New Zealand', tennis by falling from first position t<3'tenth in one season. The full list is as follows:—C. Aligns (Canterbury), 1; H. A. Barnett (Canterbury), 2; N. R. C. Wilson (Wellington), 3; E. L. Bartleet (Auckland) and D. G. France (Wellington), equal, 4; N. G. Sturt (Auckland), 6; R A. Court (Hawke's Bay), 7; A. L. France.(Wellington), 8; W. G, Robertson (Canterbury).,'*); A. C. Stedman (Auckland); 10. . ■: • -J. Few people .will quarrel Svith the ranking on New Zealand championship form, for Barnett is entitled to second place by virtue of his winning through in the draw and reaching the last bracket. He showed himself definitely superior to Wilson, but is probably not better than D. G. France. Court may be thought lucky to find such a high position, but his singles play last season showed a marked advance, and he gave a better display than A. L. France when they met in the New Zealand championships. Bartleet and Sturt, by their form, revealed themselves still worthy of a place in the first six, while the annual discovery this year is Robertson, who is undoubtedly headed for higher things. The strength of the Canterbury team, indeed, raises the qr/.stion of whether that province is not headed again for its old dominance of New Zealand tennis. The ranking of the women players shows an overwhelming advantage to Wellington, five players from that association in the first nine. The list is as follows: — Miss D. Nicholls (Wellington), 1; Mrs. H. M. Dykes (Wellington). 2; Miss M. Mac farlane (Auckland), 3; Mrs. W. J. Melody (Wellington), 4; Miss B. M. Knight (Auckland), 5; Miss M. Wake (Canterbury), 6; Mrs. E. Xapier (Auckland), 7; Mrs. G. D. France (Wellington) and Miss D. Howe (Wellington), equal, S.

This list is remarkable for several things, all of which point to the fact that the ranking committee has been influenced byother things than the form of the players .in the New Zealand -championships. For one thins, Mrs; Melody has replaced Miss Knight as fourth player in New Zealand, though Mise Knight wae picked as fourth in the New Zealand representative team against the Australians, and Mrs. Melody was emergency. For another, Mies Nicholls has been rated above Mrs. Dykes, although their contests in Wellington served to ehow that on form here Mrs. Dykes was the better. Miss Nicholls, however, was held by the selectors to bo the New Zealand player who showed the greatest advance, through playing against the visiting -Australian team, and this and her record against the visitors apparently has gained her first place. There are three newcomers to the list. Mrs. Napier and Miss Howe both have good records in their respective provinces. Mrs. D. G. France was Miss Eileen Bradytill her marriage last year. She has a long and successful record in tournaments here, and has beaten Miss Wake at one New Zealand meeting.