ANOTHER WET DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 289, 5 December 1936, Page 19

ANOTHER WET DAY.

LADDER MATCHES DECIDED. KNOTTY POINTS FOR UMPIRES. (By HALF-VOLLEY.) Another wot afternoon made tennis, even at most hard court clubs, out «of the question last Saturday, and players were left wondering when the season may really be expected to begin. A few ladder matches have been played on week days, but Saturday club tennis has not yet properly started, with only tnree week-ends left before Christmas. There has not been even the usual keenness evident among leading players, due no doubt to the cool weather which has so far prevailed. But those who are thinking of taking part in Christmas and New Year tournaments will have to start practising in earnest shortly, if they are to produce form that is anything like consistent. Among ladder matches so far played experience has eaerned to triumph over youthful enthusiasm. The most, notable example of this was the defeat' of the young Eden and Epsom player, J. L. B. Stevens, by V. R. Johns, who must be twice the age of the younger player. Nine out of ten players would have backed Stevens to win in straight sets, but Johns, who has always been noted for his persistency and reliability in match singles, established an early lead, and Stevens could not make any impression on him. Johns ran out comfortably in straight sets, winning 6—2, 6—3/ by steady, and sufficiently severe, deep drives to both sides of the court, keeping his opponent on the run. Wilson Brothers Strike Form. Another unexpected win by an older over a younger player was the defeat of J. T. Mayson in three sets by Jack Wilson. Wilson can hardly be described as a veteran player, but he has had several more seasons in first class play than has Mayson,' and his experience stood him in good stead. Mayson was generally expected to justify his challenge, and when he won the first set, 6—4, he must have given himself a good chance. Courageous play by Wilson, however, reversed the position, and after winning the second set 6—o, Wilson ran out at o—3 in the third—a meritorious performance, and one which should put a little new heart into. Wilson after a rather hard run last season. Pat Wilson, challenging Craig Partridge for third place, lost the second set 7- —5, but aggressive volleying carried the day for him in the third set, which he won at o—2.0 —2. Partridge has now been challenged by Turner for fourth place. The latter player rose to fifth by defeating Spencer Lamb 6—l, B—6, in a fairly even match in which Turner's greater reliability in his ground shots proved the deciding factor. On the ladies' ladder Miss J. Ramsay has retained her position at the top, defeating Miss Bernice Bishop 6—3, 6—i. Miss Macfarlane will probably now challenge Miss Bishop for second place. Portraits of Players. For the next few weeks "Half "Volley" will criticise the play of one or more players whose match play has been in the news during the week. It will, perhaps, be fitting to make a start on J. T. Mayson, the young Eden and Epsom champion, whose unexpected defeat by J. Wilson has already been referred to. Mayson is the stuff of which good, if not inspired players, are made. Though lacking the natural grace and fluency which characterise the tennis of Edgar Bartleet or Ivan Seay, Mayson has natural shots which are sufficiently stylish to be useful.' His early appearances in match tennis made critics wonder whether his tempera-1

merit was n'ot going to be a handicap, as he appeared to become annoyed with himself when things began to go against him. Greatly to his credit lie seems to have entirely overcome this temperamental defect, and the natural determination which forms so great an asset in his tennis equipment has thus been enhanced. Mayson plays useful natural shots in both forehand and backhand, and comes in to the net and volleys, choosing the occasion to do so with proper discrimination. He has still some faults for which he can blame his early training on a hard court. While this early hard-court tennis taught him to attempt to retrieve everything, and to keep the ball in play, it also gave him the habit of playing his ground shots with too high a trajectory—too large a margin over the net. This is particularly bad in doubles, where he will often put up a return of service sufficiently high to allow it to be murdered by his opponents- If Mayson will hit his ground shots flatter, and punch his volleys with a firmer wrist ancl greater decision, he will improve his game tremendously. The tennis is undoubtedly in him, and he is capable ot winning the Auckland championship before many years arc past. Points for the Lawyer. Under the heading "Legal Expert Wanted," the writer set a couple of posers for the tennis lawyers in this column last week. The first asked whether A, on winning the toss, could force B to serve from the bad The actual instance was taken from the English

paper "Lawn Tennis and Badminton," and reads as follows: — "It has for long been recognised in lawn tennis that the winner of the toss is not permitted to say to his opponent: ' I'll serve this end,' though he may not be sufficiently conversant with the rules of the game to be able to quote chapter and verse to uphold such a viewpoint. And yet a doubles pair at the Craigside tournament last week, on winning the toss, managed to persuade their opponents to serve from the bad end, quoting the rule to enforce their requests. It appears that the pair winning the toss last week asked their opponents to 'make first choice' (to quote the rule) for service, or sides. Tile opposition chose to play one game in the bad end against the sun. The winners of the toss then proceeded to request the opposition to serve, apparently assuming that when the opponents have made their first choice they themselves could make second choice, either to serve or receive. The umpire, upheld the request, and thus the pair losing the toss had to serve from the bad end." "Tile umpire's decision to allow such a state of affairs is clearly incorrect," said the editor of "Lawn Tennis and Badminton." "Half Volley" indicated last week, however, that in his opinion the matter was not disposed of so easily, and, indeed, his opinion then was, and still is, that Homer has nodded, and that the English editor is clearly wrong, the muchabused umpire having been right after

all. "Half Volley's" view seems to be supported by the majority of local critics, several of whom were interested enough in the point to write in, expressing their views. "Dunholme," to quote the penname of one correspondent, summarises "Half Volley's" own opinion when he says:— "Under Rule 5, the winner of the toss may, if he prefers it, require his opponent to make the first choice. Note the use of the word 'first.' A, having exercised his right to forego first choice, naturally has the second choice, and elects either to serve or not to serve, according to which end his opponent has chosen." This seems to "Half Volley" to be obvious and elementary, my dear Watson. It seems so, too, to Dr. F. H. Pearce, writing in "Lawn Tennis and Badminton" (in all issue subsequent to the number quoted above) where he criticises at length the editor's comments; the only retort the latter can manage to make is the dignified, but not very convincing one that "Dr. Pearce's interpretation does not coincide with ours."