U.S.A. RETAINS THE DAVIS CUP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 210, 6 September 1938, Page 7

U.S.A. RETAINS THE DAVIS CUP.

THE FINAL SINGLES.

Budge Conquers Quist in Straight Sets..

BROMWICH BEATS RIGGS.

( United Press Association.—Copyright. (•Received 10 a.m.) '. PHILADELPHIA, September 5. When the final • singles in the 1 Davis Cup challenge round were commenced this afternoon, Australia required victory in both to win the 1 trophy from United States, which country had taken it from Great Britain, at Wimbledon, last year. When Budge beat Quist in straight sets, however, the Americans had retained the cup; although Bromwich was successful in the succeeding rubber against the youthful Californian, who had vanquished Quist on Saturday. ' The scores were:— J. D. Budge (U.S.A.) beat A. K. Quist, B—6, 6—l, 6—2. J. E. Bromwich (Australia) beat R. ' L - Rl 'ggs, 6—J, 4—6, 6—o, 6—2. In the opening set Budge served and lost the hist game, in which he scored two points. Quist took the second by a similar margin. Budge dropped *his service in the third, to love, and Quist won the fourth, 50—30. The American was highly inaccurate, whereas the Australian's passing shots continuously gained him points. Budge's service compelled Quist to make defensive returns in the fifth game, and the American won it, 50—15. Q u i ßt led JO—o m the sixth, but he dropped his service by six points to four, and the score was evened at 3—3. The games thereafter alternated with the service until after the tenth game, in which there was a peculiar iineKlent when Quist was leading 40—la. Ihe foot-fault, judge called three foot-faults against Quist, completely upsetting the Australian and seemingly having the same effect on Budge. Ihe crowd booed; and Mr. Paul i Gibbons, who was umpiring and is' himself notorious for foot-fault callin" against Quist cautioned the spectator!; that toot-faults are part of the game " Budge then dropped three points in I succession, without, however, trying to give the Australian the game. A break in the service occurred in the eleventh and twelfth, each player dropping the game; with the score then 6—6. Quist stood 40—0 to break Budse's service again in the thirteenth, but the American pulled out the game to make him 7—6. Crowd Jeered Unmercifully. The foot-fault judge called two footfaults against Quist in the fourteenth the crowd jeered unmercifully. Mr. Gibbons angrily cautioned the audience: "Foot-faults are foot-faults and should be called. It is most unsporting to protest against them. The Australian captain (H. O. Hopman) agrees with me thereon." Budge thereafter sportingly dropped two points which the foot-faulting had cost Quist, but the latter was plainly unnerved and dropped the game after deuce, and thus lost the set, 6—B. In the second set Quist dropped his service in the second game, after standing 40—15. Budge led 2—o, which he increased to 4—o, with another break of Quist's service. All the fire seemed to have gone out of Quist. The footfault finder, Mr. Harold le Bair, explained that Quist leaped in the air while serving, and clearly foot-faulted. It was asked why he alone, however, called foot-faults. He shrugged his shoulder. The comment in the Press stand was that the second judge, Mr. Louis Shaw, did not want to spoil the match. There was little he could do with regard to the foot-fault situation, although on numerous occasions it has spoiled Australia's chances, not by points lost but by the psychological effect over Quist. The most cynical of the Press commentators, seeing how badly Quist was playing in this set, proclaimed: '.'He's done!" Well, Quist was not altogether done. He cracked Budge's service in the game to fifth love, with splendid drives from forehand and backhand, and stood 40—0 to do the same again in the seventh. However, he was unable to carry on the revival, and lost the game after five deuces, and the set, I—6. Both played spottily in the third set. Quist lost his service twice and Budge once to love. Quisl's service, however, returned to form in the fourth game, which he won to lead 3—l. The American thereon broke Quist's service, again to love, and was notably lucky with two net-corders. Budge won the sixth game I 50 —30, by service-acing his opponent, and the end seemed impending, particularly when Quist doiible-faulted in the seventh. However, he pulled out the game, in which he conceded Budge two points, but it was only an over-brief interlude and he went under finally in the eighth.game, 2 —6. to lose the rubber and Australia's chance of lifting the cup. Too Late for Australia. The fate of the cup was already decided when Bromwich and Riggs went, on to the court. Each lost his first ser- ! vice gamej Bromwich to love and Biggs ] to 15. Bromwich won his service in the ,' third to love, while Riggs dropped his in j the fourth game to 30. Both seemed i slow in warming up, but after 3—3; the tennis became tricky and amusing. | Both drop-shotted frequently, and Riggs j showed surprising ability to score a point from these. Bromwich netted little easy ones, and the crowd was hilarious as the games alternated with < the service until Bromwich began to • put on pressure. He won the ninth i game to love, and breaking Riggs' ser-) vice in the tenth, in which he conceded only one point, Bromwich ran out: to set, O—4. The second set opened similarly to the first, each dropping his service. Bromwich won the third game to 15, and from that point the conditions varied j slightly from the other set. Bromwich I was a point from breaking Ri»<»s' service in the fourth, but the American saved the situation to even the score 2—2. Again they tried to out-trick each other w?i?i drop-shots; again Riggs came off the tx>tter, and the audience liked it. This tire, however, it was fii"ore costly to the Australian. n. i.J*

his service in the seventh game to 10, and the American led 4—3, which he improved to 5 —3 in the best game of the rubber. Six points in it were the hardest fought, and were settled only after long-sustained rallies, where the American's lobs or volleys ultimately proved to be decisive. Bromwich pulled out his service in the ninth game, but Riggs was not to be denied, and he squared the rubber in the tenth game with a series of beautiful smashes and passing shots.

In the all-important third set Bromwich Avon the first and second games, allowing Riggs only a single point. The Californian dropped his racquet in despair and wrung his hands to heaven when he lost a point. After a hairraising rally, giving Bromwich a 40—30 lead in the third game Bromwich paimptly double-faulted, despite which he won the game. The Australian broke Riggs' service in the fourth game. The American was contesting Bromwich's advance, but the latter had just a little more "on the ball." He went to s—o,5 —0, quietly overcoming his opponent with the sustained precision of his returns. Riggs' tendency to net an over-large number of returns made the result inevitable. Bromwich took the sixth with the loss of two points to complete a love set.

Bromwich won services in the final set. the first to love, the second to 15, the third and fourth to 30. Riggs simply netted and hit out 90 per cent of his returns. The Australian did not need to put on pressure—he simply outsteadied his opponent.tXor can it be said j that Riggs was genuinely 'trying. After all the challenge, round was already decided. Bromwich won the fifth game to 15. Both players awoke in the sixth, and they fought for points, Riggs winning it by eight to six; principally by drop-shots and Bromwich's errors. Bromwich lost the seventh similarly, and this was the Australian's first really serious ! lapse of the contest. This continued until Kiggs stood 40 —15 in the eighth game, when Bromwich applied the necesJ sary pressure to win the game, set and I rubber.

The earlier rubbers resulted: Riggs beat Quist. 4—6. 6—o. B—6, 6—l} Budge beat Bromwich, 6—2, 6—3. 4—6. 7—5; Quist and Bromwich beat Budge and C. G. Mako, o—6, 6—3, 6-4, 6—2.

Winners of the Davis Cup since its inception: 1900-2. U.S.A.; 1903-6, British Isles; 1907-1911. Australasia; 1912, British Isles; 1913, U.S.A.: 1914-19. Australasia; (1915-1918, no competition); 1920-26, U.S.A. fwinning s—o at Auckland at New Year, 1920): 1927-32. France; 1933-36, Great Britain; 1937-38, U.S.A.

AN OLD HABIT.

THE RULE QUIST BREAKS. Quist's tendency to foot-fault has" marred his game during his career. Two years ago, when he was in America with the Davis Cup team, he was penalised by Mr. Paul Gibbons (umpire in yesterday's match), who was then a foot-fault judge in the final of the North American zone contest, when Australia beat U.S.A. On that occasion Quist beat W. L. Allison, but lost to Budge in straight sets. Subsequent to this he set about to remedy the fault. When he played at the Stanley Street courts in Auckland it was noticeable that he did not offend by jumping as he served. Apparently under the, great tension in the Davis Cup, with the onus on his shoulders of keeping the tie alive, he lapsed into his characteristic error. The relevant portion of the foot-fault rule in connection with Quist's service is as follows:—"The service shall be delivered in the following manner: Immediately before commencing to serve, the server shall stand with both feet at rest behind the base-line. The server shall, throughout the delivery of the service, (a) not change his position by walking or running; (b) maintain contact with the ground; (c) keep both feet behind the baseline. i