LAWN TENNIS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21707, 14 February 1936, Page 17

LAWN TENNIS

JUNIOR TEAM FOR AUSTRALIA

OMISSION OF I. J. CORICH CAUSES SURPRISE

..... (By Crosscourt,) The announcement of the personnel of the team of players under the age of 21 to visit Sydney this month has caused great surprise among followers of the game in Canterbury. Undoubtedly the four players chosen are youngsters of promise, but to those who are acquainted with the form and capabilities of all the players the emission of I, J. Corich, of Canterbury, New Zealand junior champion in 1933, is incomprehensible.. R. G. Pattinson, of course, has thoroughly justified v his selection by his performances this season, but some indication of, the official opinion of Corich in Canterbury may be gained from the fact that the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association nominated Corich and Pattinson, in that order, for the team. Corich, it appears, is yet another victim of the discrimination which has so often been made between North Island and South Island players. The New Zealand championships are held, twice in each three years, in the North Island, and North Island players have, roughly speaking, twice as many opportunities of impressing the officials of the New Zealand Association who select these teams. Not many young players are able to meet the financial burden of travelling to the North Island to play in the annual championships. No one will quarrel with the selection of N. F. N. Bedford, who shows possibilities' of developing into New Zealand’s best player Since the war, nor with the selection of A. D. Brown, the hard-hitting young Aucklander, who created a good impression in Christchurch last year in the Wilding Shield match. Better Than Gunn • Canterbury players who have watched the form of J. W. Gunn and Corich, and who have played against both, are unanimous that Corich is not only the better player at the present time, but that he shows far greater possibilities of developing into a champion. Corich defeated Gunn when they met in the final of the New Zealand junior championship at Christchurch in 1933, and his improvement since then has been remarkable. He has not had the spectacular successes of Pattinson, but his methods are sounder, and he has been more consistent. Against all the leading Canterbury players, he has invariably played excellent tennis. Unfortunately, he was unable to compete in the New Zealand championships at .Wellington at' Christmas, and the selectors have not been able to see for themselves what improvement he has made since winning the junior championship. Gunn, on the other hand, played in the championships and reached the third round. There he was beaten by Angas, 8-6, 6-3,, 6-8, 6-0. The merit of this performance, however, was discounted "to some extent by the poor form Angas showed in the tournament. Corich undoubtedly Is one of the most promising young players in New Zealand at the present j,ime, and the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association, by omitting him from this team, has in part defeated the object of the tour. Before Christmas the association sent a team of six women to Australia, and some of these at least have passed the stage at which ...ay can be expected to profit from overseas tours. Keen judges of the game would welcome a decision by the association to increase the number of players in the boys’ team to five and to give Corich the opportunity which his keenness and good play has earned.

SHIELD AND CASKET MATCHES

PROGRAMME FOR TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW

Following is the programme for today and to-morrow in the matches between Wellington (challengers) and Canterbury for the Anthony Wilding Memorial Shield and the Kathleen Nunneley Casket, to be played at Wilding Park, Wellington players being mentioned first:— TO-DAY Wilding Shield J. 30 p.m.—R. McL. Ferkins v. A. R. Cant, J, C. Charters v. H. Dymond. 2.30 p.m.—D. C. Coombe v. C. Angas, E., A. Roussell v. H. A. Barnett, 3.45 p.m.—Coombe and Charters v. Angas and Barnett. 4.30, p.m.—Ferkins and Roussell v. Cant and Dymond. Nunneley Casket 1.30 p.m.—Mrs A. D. Latham v. Miss N. Bishop, Miss M. Howe v. Miss E, Rudkin. 2.30 p.m.—Mrs N. Dickson v. Miss T. Poole. IVJiss D. Nicholls v. Miss I. Poole, 3-30 p.m.—Miss Howe and Mrs Latham v. Misses I. and T. Poole. 4.30 p.m.—Miss Nicholls and Mrs Dickson y. Misses Bishop and Rudkin. TO-MORROW Wilding Shield 1.30 p.m,—Charters v. Cant, Ferkins v, Dymond, 2.30 p.m.—Roussell v, Angas, Coombe v. Barnett. 8.45 p.m.—Ferkins and Roussell v. Angas and Barnett. 4.30 p.m,—Coombe and Charters v. Cant and Dymond. Nunneley Casket 1.30 p.m.—Miss Howe v. Miss Bishop, , Mrs Latham v. Miss Rudkin. 2.30 p.m.—Miss Nicholls v. Miss T. POole, Mrs Dickson v. Miss I, Poole. 8.30 p.m.—Miss Nicholls and Mrs Dickson v. Misses I. and T. Poole, 4.30 p.m.—Miss Howe and Mrs Latham v. Misses Bishop and Rudkin.