LAWN TENNIS HUNTER AND MISS DIANE SOUTER NEW CHAMPIONS

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28472, 30 December 1957, Page 11

LAWN TENNIS HUNTER AND MISS DIANE SOUTER NEW CHAMPIONS

Even though the fields for the Canterbury lawn tennis championships were not as good as some in the past, the conclusion of the tournament at Wilding Park on Saturday brought finals which lacked little in interest and produced title-holders of worth.

Identical twins from Timaru, pisses Diane and Denise Souter, aged 17, who met in the women’s singles final, were not only alike in features but also in almost everything they did on the court. They wore similar frocks, so for the benefit of umpire and spectators Diane wore a red belt.

Coached by their 'father, Mr Malcolm ’ Souter, a South Island doubles winner, they have developed similar styles of stroking and strategy. Diane, seeded first for the title, beat Denise, seeded fourth, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3. They endeared themselves to spectators by their happy demeanour and there could be no thought of partisanship. Recently there has been a change in superiority between the two. When they met at Wilding Park last season in the final of the Canterbury under 17 championship, Denise beat Diane, 6-1, 6-2. Recently Denise led the South Canterbury Howe Shield team against Canterbury and lost both her singles to players whom Diane beat. So Diane was seeded first for the Canterbury titles, and the seeding was justified. Hunter Wins The men’s singles final brought • popular win for the Elmwood player, A. D. L. Hunter, who as a finalist last year was beaten by J. B. Souter, then 14, a cousin of the twins. Hunter has contributed much to Canterbury tennis, and the provincial title as a reward for his enthusiasm is richly deserved. Hunter spent several years at Edinburgh University, represented Scotland at tennis and won the Scottish doubles title twice. Since he returned to Christchurch about four years ago he has been consistently near the top of the men's ladder and has won several titles, including the South Island doubles. Pressure of work has sometimes noticeably affected his play in important matches. On Saturday he reached his best form to beat the young University player, B. Crofts, 8-6, 6-4. But Crofts’ performance in reaching the final as an unseeded player and in being beaten so narrowly was a fine one. To get to the final he had to eliminate M. C. Healey, seeded third, and the fifth-seeded A. J. Hewitt. He won each of these matches by his determination under pressure, and atf times it seemed that this quality might bring him the final, to*- . Performance A remarkable performance was that of two 16-year-old girls in winning the women’s doubles title. Misses J. Andrews, of Ashburton, and B. Blackburn, of Christchurch, had not before appeared on the centre court, let alone won a major provincial title, when they beat the Souters," 4-6, 6-2, 6-3. in the final.

The men’s doubles was notable for another win for the experienced W. J. Smith, still one of the finest players in the province, although he has played no competitive tennis from one Christmas tournament to another for the last few years. For the last two years he has entered only in the naan’s doubles. With M. C. Healey he won the title last year, and they held it on Saturday when they beat Hunter and A. L. Blackwell, 6-4, 6-4.

Early Lead Crofts looked likely to cause another upset when he went to a 5-2 lead against Hunter in the first set. Not a stylish player, he gained his advantage by consistency, some brilliant passing shots as Hunter went to the net, and some wonderful retrieving. No return seemed too difficult for him as he covered the back of the court. He had no sooner hit one shot than he was moving to the next. Hunter, essentially a volleyer and smasher, was out of touch in both those departments at this stage, and he was making too many mistakes against Crofts’s consistency.

The turning point of the match came at 5-2. when Hunter began to hit more accurately. He was still passed at times, especially from Crofts’s backhand, but close to the net he was deadly. Hunter won three games in succession to even at 5-5. Crofts took another lead at 6-5 before Hunter won another three games in succession when Crofts played a few weak shots towards the end. Even then it took Hunter three set points to win, and he had taken the lead for the first time at 7-6. Hunter’s voUeying, especially on the backhand, stood him in good stead in the second set, but Crofts was still returning shots from well behind the baseline. He also made some very effective smashes, although he used the shot only occasionally in the match. Hunter went to the 5-2 lead in this set, but the appearance that Crofts had tired was deceptive, for he then broke Hunter’s service and got to 4-5 before Hunter won the next two games. The match took an hour and 22 minutes, the first set 50 minutes and the second set 32 minutes. * Baseline Players The women’s final was a contest between two consistent and accurate baseline players who keep a good length, but there was very little between them. In the first set Miss Diane Souter went to a quick lead at 3-1 and at 4-2 looked to have the set won. Then Denise, tightening her play, won four games in succession for the set. At first Denise was overhitting and putting shots just outside the lines, but she showed later she could match her sister. One of her best shots was a deceptive, delayed drive which caught Diane napping several times.

Both drove for the comers all the time and they made each other run a great deal. Diane gained an advantage at the beginning of the second set which she held from then on. She was the steadier and lasted the long rallies better. Denise did not again hold a lead. The match took about an hour and a quarter. Doubles Win Few of the spectators thought that Misses Andrews and Blackbum would beat the Souters even when the former pair took the first set, 6-3. They did not hit particularly hard, but they were most careful and consistent. When the Souters went through the second set for the loss of only one game the result seemed assured. Then in the third set the Souters held four match points at 5-4, all of which Misses Andrews and Blackburn survived before going on to take the match. The combination was an effective one of a steady player (Miss Andrews) and an aggressive one. Miss Andrews upset the Souters, who may have been tired after their singles, with some varying length returns. The tried combination of Smith and Healey was just as good as last year. Smith has always been noted for his doubles play, and his placements were a delight. They were complemented by Healey’s fine Volleying and smashing. Results:—

CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS Men’s Singles Final.—A. D. L. Hunter beat B. Crofts, 8-6, 6-4.

Women’s Singles Final.—Miss Diane Souter beat Miss Denise Souter, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3.

Men’s Doubles Semi-finals.—A. D. L. Hunter and A. Lu Blackwell beat A. Hewitt and I jy in & 8 ,- 1 > s : 1; w - J - Smith and M. C. Healey beat B. Crofts and T. Hameiss, 6-3, 9-7. Final.—Smith and Healey beat Hunter and Blackwell, 6-4, 6-4. Women’s Doubles Final.—Misses J. Andrews and B. Blackburn beat Misses Diane and Denise Souter, 6-3, 1-6, 7-5. Mixed Doubles Quarter-finals (continued).—A. L. Blackwell and Miss Denise Souter beat B. Crofts and Miss B. Mollison, ®; 7 , 6 "1 : v. E ’ Ki rkland and Mrs B, Watmuff beat B. Crawford and Miss J. Andrews, 1-6, 6-1, 6-3. Semi-finals.—A. Blackwell and Miss Denise Souter beat M. C. Healey and Miss C. Smith, .by default; A. D. Hunter and Miss Diane Souter beat Kirkland and Mrs Watmuff, 6-2, 6-4 Final.—Hunter and Miss Diane Souter beat Blackwell and Miss Denise Souter, 6-2, 6-2. HANDICAP EVENTS Men’s Singles Final.—P. Muxlow (rec. 3-6) beat B. Lane (owe 15 3-6), 9-5. Women’s Singles Semi-finals.—Miss S. Mackay (owe 30) beat Miss H. Lord (scr), 9-6-Mrs B. Watmuff (owe 15) beat Miss P. Mackay (owe 4-6), 9-3. • Final. —Mrs Watmuff beat Miss Mackay, 9-4.

Men’s Doubles Semi-finals.—M. Berkeley and D. Forbes (owe 15 3-6) beat W. Mackay and R. L. Keats (scr), 9-3; R. Irvine and S. A. Swanson (owe 30) beat Fs an d Muxlow (scr). Final.—Berkeley and Forbes beat Irvine and Swanson, 9-8. Women’s Doubles Semi-finals.—Misses E. Hart and Y. Hart (owe 3-6) beat Misses H. Parris and C. Parris (owe 15 3-6), 9-0; Misses S. Mackay and P. Mackay (owe 15 3-6) beat Mesdames B. Watmuff and G. Wilson (owe 30). 9-6. Final.—Misses E. and Y. Hart beat Misses Mackay and Mackay, 9-8.