TENNIS NOTES

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21391, 6 February 1935, Page 15

TENNIS NOTES

CANTERBURY TEAMS' SUCCESSES PROVINCIAL STANDARD REVIEWED [Br CROSS-COCRT.] Canterbury lawn tenuis enthusiasts have every reason to feel gratified at the success of the provincial men's and women's teams in winning the Anthong Wilding Memorial Shield and the Kathleen Nunneley Casket respectively from Wellington after having challenged unsuccessfully for the former each year since 1928-29, and for the latter since 1930-31. Yet this gratification must be tempered by the reflection that the province's success this year was attributable not so much to an improvement in the form of local players as to a definite weakening in the teams of the defending association. This was true not so much in the Wilding Shield event as in the casket competition, although the statement applies in some measure to the former. Perhaps in the case of the Wilding Shield teams it would be more correct to say that while the Wellington team was below its strength of previous years, the Canterbury team at the same time had made some progress. Unfortunately this cannot be said of the women's match, for the Canterbury team seemed to be definitely weaker than in the previous vear and it achieved a very narrow victory over what Wellington critics are unanimous in describing as the weakest Wellington four for many vears. Can Still Improve Canterbury however, has the comforting knowledge that the majority of the plavers who represented the province this vear are comparatively voung and likelv to be available for some years to come. Although some of them have not made the progress this year that has been expected of them, thev should improve with experience. " If the development of a champion could be plotted m a graph, ft is but rarely that the graph wouid appear as a straight line. Practically everv player has occasional periods in the doldrums when he or she feels that, instead of progressing, his or her game is retrogressing, but when that period passes it gives way to a marKed improvement. Some players have more of these bad periods than others. A review of the play of the Wilding Shield team makes it clear that Canterbury was definitely stronger this vear than in either of the two preceding seasons. Angas's game has remained at much the same standard. Since his return from Australia he ha* shown more aggressiveness and a Greater range of shots than betore. but his play is not quite as solid as previously Barnett had a comparatively "lean" vear in 1933-34. but this season, with more practice and a visit to Australia to tune him up. his game ..3s returned to its former standard, ana possiblv higher. The possession oi a good forehand drive instead of his very uncertain chop shot, would make him a New Zealand champion, bih. u is not for want of trying that Barne.t has failed to strengthen this department of his game. In third place was Rhodes-Williams, definitely not as good as in 1933-34. but still a very sound match player. Dymonds record in local matches was superior to that of the former player, but in lington he failed to strike his bes. form. Wellington Standards Wellington's team was probably wronger than that of the previous year, fc-r Don Franc made a very good substitute for Malfroy, but it was certainly a lot weaker than in the sea-, sens in which both France and Mai-; frov played, and were backed up bv, a close third in Noel Wilson Thi,, season Ferkins was displaced fjor. j place by Smith, the. V-ellingto , chamoion. but whii- this selection, strengthened the Wellington tail ui l<--ft a" distinct weakness in the nead. it will be remembered that la_=t year: Ferkins beat both Angas and Barnett while this season Smith lost Bedford a youngster, who shouldl undoubtedly win a New Zealand cham-; pior-hip in the next few years, was a, big improvement on Howe for tot rlh; place, and won both his smglos again-Rhodes-Williams and Dymond. e J:\ Ken was expected to be weakened j in doubles throush the inclusion of| Smith, but actually it was . r ranee poor form that was responsible to. the failure of this combination, especially on the first day. ,„,.>,,,,-<• I On the whole, therefore. Canteibu , ■ ha. no reason to be dissatisfied with j the outlook for i?s rr.ons tennis, es-j ueciallv as it has a very promising crop of juniors and players just nu. of junior ranks to look to in tin. j future. j

Women's Play Disappoints Tlt* women's play was fl-ankly disappni'ntins. and lt; would probably have been a bad year for Canterbury women's tennis had not Miss Sherris •■iiddenlv struck unprecedented form that enabled her to take the place <u Miss Wake, incapacitated for the •reater part of the season with a hand Uilury. Miss Sherris played so well a- to suggest that there may be even better things ahead for her. She piaved a very important part m winning the Nunneley Casket but. like all the southern players, failed to do herself justice in the New Zealand championships at Auckland. After t-itf-ariy progress over a period, of years Miss Rudkin reached her best when vhe won the Canterbury title in 1933-3-4. and it was not altogether surprising thai this vear she should have an indifferent spell of form. Her game, however, is very solid, and she also -hould improve once she regains the confidence th~t has been sapped by occasion-1 defeats this season. Miss Thelmn Poole was a disappointment, not because of any falling off in the quality of her aggressive stroke reoertoire. but because she seemed to lack th-r concentration nf-cessarv to defeat J ayes who gave away nothing in errors. Far too often she tried "to hit outright winners against plavers who gave her fewsuitable balls for „uch tactics, and the result rvas that she made things more difficult for herself than they shouid have been. She is young, however, and impatience is proverbially a failing of the young, and there is no doubt that as she gains discretion with experience she will make steady improvement. Miss Irine Pooled game is less volatile than her sister's, and less susceptible to vicissitudes of form, but she also failed to produce her best tennis in the North Island. She completely lost touch with her usually splendid overhead work, and she was inclined to hit wildly on the forehand whenever she was bustled. She. too, may be expected to overcome these lapses and to resume the very steady progress that she has made in the game in the last few years. VVellingtoiVs Weakness Without Mrs Dykes the Wellington Nunneley Casket team was much below its former strength, and although Mrs St. Clair Dickson was a capable second string, Wellington was still at a loss to find nrst-class players to fill the third and fourth places. Had the Misses Poole been at their best it is inconceivable that they should have lost sets in either doubles or singles to the third and fourth players of Wellington, and had that been the case Canterbury would have been assured of a victory on sets, regardless of the result of the exciting doubles matches on the second day of the contest. Auckland Challenges Canterbury It was announced at the meeting of the management committee of the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association last evening that the Auckland Association had challenged ' Canterbury for the Wilding Shield. March 15 and 16 had been agreed on by the associations a's the dates for the match, which would be played at Wilding Park. Auckland's challenge will undoubtedly be a strong

one, for its- team will probably be headed by E. L. Bartleet, the veteran whose fine form this year caused Perry | to describe as the best player in New j Zealand, N. G. Sturt, one of New Zea- j land's best players in recent years, j and M. T. Wilson, who beat Sturt and ran Bartleet to five sets in the final of the Auckland championship. In reporting on the results of the internrovincial matches, the manager of the Canterbury teams. Mr J. Mercer, said that the Canterbury players had been popular in Wellington, had received wonderful hospitality, and had played good tennis. On the amotion of Mr E. Browning, seconded by Mr T. W. Patterson, it was decided to send a letter of congratulation to each member of the teams and to the I manager. j South Canterbury Match ! The annual interprovincial match j between Canterbury and South Can- j terbury will be played this season at Tirnaru on March 2. The teams will ; consist of six men and six women. I I | VISIT OF KAY AND ! | EWIN ' i ' j > J SATURDAY'S PROGRAMME An attractive programme of matches j has been arranged for the visit to < Christchurch next Saturday of the Vic- j torian players, A. A. Kay and R. W. I | Ewin. The management committee of | ! the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Associa- j tion last evening adopted the recom- j mendation of the selectors that the fol- j lowing matches should be played at Wilding Park, commencing at 2 p.m.:— R. W. Ewin (Victoria) v. H. Dy- j mond ( Canterbury). j A. A. Kay (Victoria) v. C. Angas | i (Canterbury). j \ Exhibition by Canterbury juniors—R \ G. Pattinson v. C. F. Per.fold. ; Kay and Ewin (Victoria* v. An gas i and A. R. Cant (Canterbury). j Exhibition match —Kay v. Ewin. The visiting players arrived in Christchurch from the north yesterday morning and were met by Messrs P. R. Harman. R. Browning, and S. W. I Jameson, officers of the Canterbury j Lawn Tennis Association. The visitors j later left for Invercargill by the ex- ; press, and will return to Christchurch j on Friday evening. I Although Kay and Ewin are regarded j as the best players in Victoria exclusive of Harry Hopman, their respective ranking has not been determined | because they have not played each | other in championship tennis in the ; last two years. They are in the final j this year in the championship of the i South Yarra Club, the chief club ir. \ Melbourne. Particular interest should ' therefore attach to their meeting on I Saturday. H. A. Barr.ett, who will be school : teaching en the West Coast for a I month, was not svailable for Satur- j day's matches, and the selectors ip. reporting to the committee, expressed | the opinion that as many local piay- , ers as possible should be given a;; ■ opportunity of meeting the Austra- ■ lians. NORTH CANTERBURY SUBASSOCIATION Ti,.. ,i;-a-,.- f,.r t:)» N..i-t!: Cm:!, :-:■.:. ■■. i'. ,■■- !.l- .s,;i,.A< s , H -l:U!.)n's ,-l;am;s;,)nshi; - 'uh:.:>' '■>,■! l l.e i..n th- r;.-i,-i--i,.r.i an.l I/jiij. -J j .-.i:i-;..-.> —Kir>t r.».iii,i: .1. U ill,am., ; . ■.. : . i U.,2£.>tr. C. Tiiily v. W. AU-.,.-,-. J. U. I'.iU.n-t , ; v. L. W.itkm,, .). Mo!;ti-rjiii..-r'. v. 11. >•■ iiiu:, :• A. Hirst x. A. Tiiih. W. v. i;' * Hirst, u. X. Jlohrt-'iii >.. \V. K ili,,t%. it. i : U. v. It. A. K." V." i K.su-.vi..* v. I. >[,u-n... S. !'.;•„,.U-., v !. T:iv. : !"l\ ii. flUpiitrirk v. M. Uli-v. J. A;,|,[.>!,-.- -. M '-'a!.".;, 11. Henry, (i. C :ir p..-:K.-r. i 1.).. : 1.] First rouiiil: A. Ham- 'an,! K. j U . K:;„ui.>s v. A. an.i <.'. Tullv, li. W. VV O „.|- ! ...r.l :aul \V. E. Mmty v. j. A (): ,:..!,., ami ! ' 11. I.:llllli, I-:. .McCllhnr, mil! \V Si„.; ,;,,■••,! v ; 1.. Ualkln- :i:nl 1.. M"ir:,. S.-.-,, a ,l r...: ;i .1 ~ . J A. (•'. W;ll-0!l ;m.l 1.. Tav|,,r i At I.nl-i- i ...-i.l A. Mij.in. 11. Fir/iMtri.-k ~ n,l .1 I !i ii!:.*.in v. K r-:.il;n ,-i:.-i .1. If. ]>,,;-<-•' II ! . a-.,1 f„ Srhlnt.-r v. (.;. i:,irilo!H.T ami 1., W. I , V'l!s„n, \V. Mil'- IT .lll'l [i. U'.'lif.>!l,Mi| v I I' .Morris iiii.l (.;. M,-hn, ■!;.-, .1. \[„ni _""m,.|-v ai-.l i U. HiMH-y v. ;'• !'. I'.ilsin- a r..\ A. C [•>-. <,-.-. \- ■iii'l li. H<i--t. M. Ki:.■',.-', ;,,.,]' K-" :'■:■'■■■ \ ! : « IM Mr Ul ,',f.•(.•;! h-in U'a'klM. Ina:. ; . ■' '•'■■ i.UIKN'S K\ KN'i'S ; N. T;i-. I'T, .Ml.--. J .Mu'i.i.'-iu.. rv v' Mi, | I'. H-ini, 'li-- 11. \\.,nl - M;.. .'. ;/....:-i ' Mi-- A. M.-li.iiT:- v M:-. \ p.- •,-. ■ Mi . ; \'. >i;-i-r v. Mi-, A. ha.-vii. Ml- ']•' Mr. f r.,r.M.i.-:* > Mi-- \ l'.n-.1. Mi-- .! ■■ i v Mi-- I'. \:ri.,.!!,rii.l,|v l',<--: Mi.- I;.! K-n ft--t--. Mi-- <• !;. Ki>„„. M,-- r .1 I Mi-- T. K.lltn. Mr- b. T.r. i„r Mi-- ! ' K. [.-Mi-. Mi-s M. K..:,1..-iI.-. . Mi-. A [;. i ' |),„,'l | Kir-t' r'.il'n.i: ' Mr- K. <l. 'l'.ilmi- I imil Misi J. i;|,-|x~,>m v Mi,- ,". U-ai].- a,,.1 Mr? I'. Ilnlm. S.-,,,.i,| -aiiMl: a. i;. iii-i c /;. Hixov •■■- Mi--1- M Waikiaiin.l N. E'lPMri.---. M.--.1.11!,,-- I; .1. -mil!, , an.i I-:. .1. r„ ri .,,,..in v. .\. M,l larrli- ' a'i'i i-:. i.r-.ii... n. m, i;;ii!i,-i,,i,iv and : A. l)MUi"l v Jli--.« ,N'. Tav|,,r nn.l \. T,„ld. ' M i.v-..•.-. If. War,) and A. (•->•.•.-r v. M...,|-ij.|.., ; <'■. .1. H.'li..'.- ami A. P.. .I.,hn-tnr, .\ r t - J M.TrN and .V. Kurd v. Mis*..-, 11. and M. ; K.'!i„...h. Mi-,..s n Tvl.t and K. lidlm v. ' Mi--...- I-:. M-(V,rms,-k and J. \V,-1,1,..r, M.'-- . dim,.- W J,,!,1i,i ,m,| l>. Tavlor v Mi--- V. ■ \:':\<\« and Mr, ("; .Mnrtlmid. Mi-s R. Skurr < .-nd Mr. C. .r. Ira«,., v. v.,•;,„,.,- ~f J( , Tulmip-Mrs Ilnlm mat,-!: <"„inl,ini',l I'ouhlr..—l-'ii-st, round: It. A. j l!-illo.'k and Mi-- M. Wa,],- v. 11. N Mid.r i.Mis and Mi<v f". lav-1i,., \V. Mavpr and Mi-- P. ?.f.-(,iili.„Hdv %. .J. .Mr,r.f;r>niiTy and , M'« .r. .\f,.r!t;..mrTv. J. I>. I'alairct and J Miss N. Pr«tn.n- v. r,. \V. \Vi!-„i, and Miss If. Ward. I. Morris and Miss V H.virv v. : R. .1. Wnmlv.'ard and Mms R. S!;„rr. A. Tnliv and .Mr.- I). Holm r. U'. f Snili.-rlaii.l and Miss P.. k>nn,-,lv. ,\. Harris : , ,„| M, s , , V Ta; 1,,r v. .1. A|.|.r.'T,v and Mi-- A. I£. ' r>i\-,m. r. Taylor and Miss K. Haliinim v. ' 11. and Miss A, Daniel, (!. Car[."ntpr and Mis, A. Mr-If.irri.- v. K. W. Knr.wlPs a„d Mi-.<r F. M.-Pormack. M. Riiehcn ] and Miss X. Fnrd v. J. K. Hosrsptr, and Mi" M. Warkins. 11. Lamb and Mi-s M. < ITendiTson v. ft. Ifonrv ,ind Miss A. D.uvsn,,. ' Pyes: J. A. V. Walson and Mi--s r. f'.dlin. ! H. Mi-r a li,.n and Mr- C. .T kins and Mr= G. M„rrland. J. William-n„ j and Mrs P. W. T;..vii,.1.15. H. 11. S.dilntrr and Mi<s J. f;iKs s „w, A. C. Fraspr and Mi's C. R. Dixon. Mfn's cvonts will b» idayod on Hio [.'niW ' Club's courts, arid wnmen'.s mnr.-iios on the ' liariirioni C'lul.'s courts. '. Tin- ;-„.„p- ~f rl „ remaining iinld:«= In th- North ("antei-bui'v Snl, A--n,.i:,ti„li's U ' .rade rornpetition on s'aiiirdav arc as fol. !"«■<:- K'aiaj.rd I,eat Fcrn-ide. AmV„.,-lev l,e:,t Methodist ißaniiorai. \V„n,|,.„,| A Lea! r n -<l.

MATCH AT HAWARDEN A ;'ri«„dl;/ mak-1, i.a- phi.-- »vl h,. t u-ce,i teams from St. Paul's Club (Papanuu im.l Willouehby Tennis Club (Haw-union; on tin; Hauanlen court-. St.. Paul's won the match by I*H to >2 (2<) sets to 4). The follow-in!,' arc the scores (St. I'aul's name; first) : Women's Fi rules—Mi--: I'cake fi, Mrs. Pi.-k.'i-in? -J; Mrs t'arr (i, Miss Earl ]; Miss ''avrkill ti, Miss Uynn ": Miss O'Callashan »;, Mi-s Piatt 1; Miss Watson (>. Mrs Whit" 1; Miss 1* Pasr» (i, Mrs Hole 0. M'ti'-i Sin-le-— )■:. 11,r,t.M,n «, f,'. Mason f>: C. Cai-r 5. It. Karl 0; M. Partner :>, K. Pawsey 2; W. Mawson !>, W. Mason (i; U. Partner !). C. Bunting 8: .7. Mawson U, 11. Sidey 0. Women's Double:— Mi-sos IVakc and I'avrrhiii (1. Mrs Pi.-kf rinir anrl MU« Karl 1: Mr., Parr anrl Miss O'Pa Hainan 6, MKvs Ryan and Piatt 0; Misses Watson and b' Pace ;, Mrs White and Mrs Hole 8 M°n's Doubles—-Csrr and Partner t=. (J. Ma.-on and Karl 0; Mawson an,l Mawson '.>, P.-iwsey and W. Mas,,,, .-, • Partner and Maw"•on 0. Hunkins and Si,lev fi. Combined finnblc Miss I'eake and Cartner (i, Mrs Pirkeritr.: and Mason f>; MrParr and Parr fi, Mhs Karl and Karl 1: Miss Caverhil! and Maw,on fi Mis« Hv,vi and Pan-spy I : Miss O'Pallashan and Mawson 6, Miss Piatt and Mason 4: Mi's, War. son and Partner 6. Mrs White and Buntintr 1; Miss Ie Page and Mawson 6. Mrs Hole and Sicley 4. The following is the draw for the combined doubles handicap of the Willoujhhv Club, the first round to he played hv February 11:—Miss Manning and "R. Mannin" (owe 30). a bye; Miss D. Gainsford and J Willetts fser), a bye; Mrs Karl and L. Rmellie fowe 15), a bye; Miss Rvan and M. O'Carroll <ser), a bye; Miss A. Learv and P. T.cary free. 15) plav Miss V. Karl and E. Hunt fowe 30 3-6); Miss Jones and Davis free. 30) play Miss Anderson and C. Mason fowe 30 3-6); Miss Piatt and \>»ve (per) rday Mrs Cowie and Earl fowe 1"i 3-6) ; Mrs White and .T. White f«rr) plav Miss I.ur-kie and R. Dahell free. 30); Miss Pohl »nd Drnmmnnd free. 15) play "Mrs Pawsey and E. Pawsey fowe 15) ; Miss