Canty singles titles fall to top seeds

Press, 9 June 1980, Page 22

Canty singles titles fall to top seeds

By

DAVID LEGGAT

Stuart Armstrong and Jan Morris justified their top seedings to win the singles titles in contrasting finals at the Canterbury table tennis championships at the Selwyn Street hall on Saturday. It was Armstrong’s first Canterbury open title and One he had to fight hard for. But for Miss Morris, it was her seventh open singles title, leaving her one short of the record of Mrs J. M. Williamson.

Armstrong could possibly regard himself as fortunate to reach the final. In his semi-final, Armstrong met .Maurice Burrowes, a player who has won every singles title in the South Island except the Canterbury singles. He has played in four finals, losing three times to Wayne Adamson and once to John Armstrong, but after two games against Stuart Armstrong he must have felt confident of having another chance to achieve his elusive ■ ambition.

Armstrong began slowly and his general play was too negative, allowing Burrowes to take control. Burrowes won the first two games and led, 16-11, with his service in hand, in the fourth game.

Somehow he allowed Armstrong to take 12 points while picking up only four himself. It should have been a winning lead. Again in the final game, Burrowes led, 12-6, but succumbed to the superior attacking play of Armstrong. The NO. 2 seed, Michael Hamel, also had to struggle to reach the final. He trailed the evergreen John Armstrong, two games to one, before recovering to take the fourth and fifth games.

The final was an absorbing battle but one which contained too many errors from both players to be rated a memorable one. It was a match which got better as it progressed. Hamel started slowly, trailed Armstrong, 15-20, closed the gap to 19-20, before losing the opening game. Armstrong could have 'won the match in straight games. On both occasions Hamel did exceptionally well to wrest the initiative away' from the skilful Armstrong. Hamel began his fourth] turn at serve in the second! game trailing, 13-17, but; won all five points to take] the lead and, eventually the; game. He began to look the ! sharper and more decisive of the two in the third game, taking an early 6-2 lead.

However, Armstrong, producing some strong forehand drives, led, 19-16. Then Hamel again battled back, and two errors by Armstrong and a superb forejhand by Hamel levelled the 'scores at 19-19. Hamel could have taken it at 21-19, but was too ambitious with a looped drive he tried to crash across the table. But he held on to win, 23-21.

The fourth game was desperately close. Hamel, down 18-19, won two consecutive points to be on match point. Armstrong, defending tenaciously, saved three match points, and Hamel saved three game points before Armstrong won 26-24. Armstrong surged to a quick.s-1 lead in the deciding game; Hamel levelled at 5-5. Hamel led, 8-7, but soon after found himself trailing, 12-15.

He closed the gap to 1617, but could get no closer and he served a fault on match • point to give Armstrong the win.

I Miss Morris was always too good for Debbie Looms, ] the young Marlborough ; player. She won the first game, but allowed the freehitting Miss Looms to draw level in the second. However, Miss Morris is in good touch. Her attacking shots, based largely on top spin, were too quick for Miss Looms who beat Miss Morri to win both the Canterbury and the South Island titles last year. I OPEN Men’s singles.—Quarter-finals: S. Armstrong beat b. Dixon, 21-b, 41-16, 21-17; al. \v. burrov.es Deal IJ. Richards, 21-10, 21-19, 21-16; IJ. Armtsrong beat M. J. Burrowes, 21-14, 21-16, 21-17; M. J. Hamel beat J. Baxter, 21-12, 21-11, 21- Semi-finals: S. Armstrong beat Burrowes, 16-21, 18-21, 21-16. 22- 21-16; Hamel beat J. Armstrong, 12-21, 23-21, 17-21, 21-17, 21-16. final: Armstrong beat Hamel, 21-19, 18-21, 21-23, 26-24, 21-16.

Women s singles.—Semi-finals: ! Miss J. Morris beat Sirs T. May, 21-11, 21-9, 17-21, 21-14; Miss I). Looms beat Miss P. • Shadbolt, 21-14, 21-10, 21-11. final: .Miss Morris beat Miss Looms, 21-14, 10-21, 21-15, 21-13. Men’s doubles.—Quarter-finals: Hamel and S. Armstrong a bye; J. Armstrong and B. Radlora beat G. Lamo and B. Keller, 21-3, 21-17, 21-18; Burrowes and Burrowes beat 11. Thompson and C. Tipper, 21-19, 15-21, 23-21, 20-22,1 121-16; T. Flint and V. Brightwell, I beat Richards and T. Sargent, 120-22, 13-21, 23-21, 21-16, 23-21. semi-finals: Hamel and Arm■strong beat Radford and Armstrong, 19-21, 21-16, 21-17, 21-17;' Burrowes and Burrowes beat Hint .and Brightwell, 21-12. 21-1,1, 17- 21-12. Final: Hamel and Armstrong beat Burrowes and Burrowes, 21-9, 21-19. 21-19. Women’s doubles.—Semi-finals: Miss Morris and Miss Looms beat Miss V. Van der Aa and Miss J. Rhind, 21-14, 21-3, 21-15; Mrs May and Miss Shadbolt beat Mrs K. Thompson and Mrs N. Jenkins, 18- 21-14, 21-15, 21-13. Final: Miss Morris and Miss Looms beat Miss Shadbolt and Mrs May, 21-19, 21-16, 21-17. Mixed doubles. — Semi-finals: Hamel and Miss Looms beat M. J. Burrowes and Miss Van der Aa, 23-21, 21-15, 18-21, 21-18; M. •\V. Burrowes and Miss Morris beat Richards and Mrs Thompson, 21-15, 21-13, 21-11. Final: Hamel and Miss Looms beat Burrowes and Miss Morris, 16-21, 21-17, 21-16, 22-20. SECOND GRADE

Men’s singles.—Final: G. Holl beat W. Hantz, 15-21, 21-14, 21-16. Women’s singles.—Final: Miss Van der Aa neat Miss D. Tipper, 21-17, 21-13. SENIOR MEN Singles.—rinal: IV. Scott beat C. Tipper, 21-18, 21-16. VETERAN MEN Singles.—Final: N. Brightwell beat B. Radford, 21-15, 21-18. UNDER 21 Boy’s singles.—Final: J. Richards beat in. Kelly, 21-13, 21-11. Girl’s singles.—dual: Miss Looms beat Miss Van der Aa, 21-14, 21-11. Boys doubles.— Final: M. Burrowes and M. Prisk beat Richards and A. Marriott, 17-21, 21-17. 21-15. Girl's doubles. —Final: Miss Van de Aa and Miss ’lipper beat Miss Looms nd Miss 11. Thompson, 21-15, 21-16. Mixed doubles.—rinai: Prisk and Miss Looms beat Burrowes and Miss Van der Aa, 21-18, 21-19. UNDER 18 Boys’ singles.—Final: Prisk beat L. White, 21-19, 21-11. Girls’ singles.—Final: Miss Van der Aa beat Miss Tipper, 21-17. 21-iS. Boys’ doubles.—Final: Prisk and A. Marriott beat White and 8. McFarlane, 21-18, 22-20. Girls’ uoubles. —Final: Miss Van der Aa and Miss Rhind beat Miss Thompson and Miss S. Lilly, 21-18, 21-15. Mixed doubles.—Final: White and Miss Van der Aa beat T. Hanrahan ana Miss Rhind, 21-19, 21-12. UNDER 16 Boys’ singles.—Final: G. McCarroll beat White, 21-10, 10-21, 21-13. Girls’ singles.—Final: Miss Van der Aa beat Miss Rhind, 21-11, 21-8. Boys’ doubles. —Final: White and N. Smith beat B. Keller and R. A. Armstrong, 21-15, 21-13. Girls’ doubles.—Final: Miss Van der Aa and Miss Lilly beat Miss S. Mayes and Miss Rhind, ; 21-18, 17-21, 21-18. Mixed doubles. —Final: White and Miss Van der Aa beat N. i Maynard and Miss Lilly, 20-22, . 21-8, 21-18. UNDER 14 Boys’ singles.—Final: L. Clark ' beat T. Hanrahan. 21-8, 21-10. 1 Giris’ singles.—Final: Mayes!' beat J. Harper, 21-19. 21-14. Boys’ doubles.—Final: Clark and G. McCarroll beat Hanrahan ' and S: Rhind, 21-18. 21-17. , Girls’ doubles.—Final: Harper and J. Gray beat Mayes and H. Beumelberg, 21-11, 21-15. Mixed doubles. —Final: Hanrahan and Mayes beat B. Young- ] man and Harper, 21-9, 21-18. UNDER 12 Boys’ singles.—Final: Young- ; man beat N. Law, 21-12, 22-20. . Girls’ singles.—Final: Gray beat Harper, 21-14, 25-23. Boys’ ‘doubles. —Final: Law and A. Callaghan beat P. NaVen and N. Hanrahan, 21-15, 16-21, 21-19. 1 Girls’ doubles. —Final: Harper j and Grev beat Beumelberg and : Mayes, 21-11, 21-15. I