Armstrong shows younger players a thing or two

Press, 12 August 1985, Page 28

Armstrong shows younger players a thing or two

It has been many years since John Armstrong last won the Canterbury open table tennis singles title but no-one could begrudge him his success at the Selwyn Street hall on Saturday night.

In a final between two players of contrasting styles, Armstrong proved himself the master of the much younger left-hander, Michael Burrowes, winning, 8-21, 21-16, 16-21, 21-16, 2112.

Earlier, the two finalists had eliminated the top two seeds, Burrowes outlasting the No. 2 man, Ling Nan Ming, and Armstrong having a surprising straightforward win against the topseeded Grant McCarroll.

Burrowes began solidly enough in the final. He is at his best when attacking with heavy top spin. Armstrong, whose defensive chopping style relies on wearing down his opponent, struggled in the first game as Burrowes sensibly played positive, but not over-exub-erant strokes.

Armstrong, after a slow start, got into his groove in the second game, chopping

the ball back low over the net with remorseless efficiency. Burrowes began to chop, or defend, himself, which were bad tactics against a man who during the last 30 years has proved himself one of the best defensive players in New Zealand.

The wearing down process continued in the fourth game, after Burrowes had won the third, then opted to take the permissable fiveminute break.

Burrowes began to get frustrated as Armstrong, a perfect study in concentration, remarkably nimble and alert, stuck to his familiar pattern of play. Burrowes simply could not break through the sure defensive screen thrown up by the Riccarton veteran.

The longer the rallies lasted, the less were Burrowes’ chances of grasping the initiative back. Once Armstrong sniffed victory he made no mistakes. At 154, in the fifth game, the contest was over and for Armstrong it was a victory to savour.

Jan Morris retained her women’s singles title, al-

though she had to work for it in the final against Bodil Martinsson. A strong hitter, particularly down the forehand side, Miss Martinsson won the second game, but self-inflicted wounds in the fourth cost her dear-

ly. Miss Morris was rarely able to get into her attacking rhythm, but made fewer errors at crucial times than her opponent. For the Swedish girl, however, there was some consolation with two titles in the under-21 section.

Karl Entwistle caused a surprise in the final of the under-21 men’s singles, outlasting McCarroll in a long third game. The top seeds for the women’s doubles, Miss Martinsson and Monique van der Aa, had a tough battle before getting home against the youthful Maxine Goldie and Joanne Fisher. For Entwistle and Miss Fisher it was a busy day. Each appeared in four finals, Entwistle having one win, and the unfortunate Miss Fisher none. Results.— OPEN Singles.— Quarter-finals: G. McCarroll beat M. Hamel, 2114, 21-19, 21-16; J. Armstrong beat K. Entwistle, 21-14, 15-21, 21-18, 20-22, 21-17; M. Burrowes beat Miss J. Morris, 21-8, 24-22,

18-21, 21-19; Ling Nan Ming beat J. Richards, 21-18, 21-16, default Semi-finals: Burrowes beat Ling, 15-21, 13-21, 21-17, 24-22, 21-17; Armstrong beat McCarroll, 21-19, 21-9, 21-18. Final: Armstrong beat Burrowes, 8-21, 21-16, 16-21, 21-16, 21-12.

Women’s, singles.— Semifinals: Miss Morris beat T. May, 21-11, 21-8, 21-9; B. Martinsson beat M. van der Aa, 2113, 21-10, 21-9. Final: Miss Morris beat Miss Martinsson, 21-15, 19-21, 21-16, 2116.

Men’s doubles.— Semi-finals: Burrowes and Ling beat K. and M. Bresnahan (South Canterbury), 21-13, 21-12; Richards and McCarroll beat R. Dixon and Hamel, 21-14, 15-21, 21-18. Final: Burrowes and Ling beat McCarroll and Richards, 21-18, 19-21, 21-17. Women’s doubles.— Semifinals: Miss Morris and Miss van der Aa beat J. Evans and J. Stead, 21-11, 21-12; Miss Martinsson and Mrs May beat K. Thompson and R. Crook, 2117, 18-21, 21-15. Final: Miss Morris and Miss van der Aa beat Miss Martinsson and Mrs May, 21-12, 21-15. Mixed doubles.— Semifinals: Hamel and Miss Morris beat T. Sargent and Mrs Thompson, 21-14, 21-17; Entwistle and Miss K. Fisher beat McCarroll and Miss van der Aa, 21-7, 21-19. Final: Hamel and Miss Morris beat Entwistle and Miss Fisher, 21-12, 1621, 21-15.

UNDER-21 Men’s singles final: Enwistle

beat McCarroll, 21-11, 17-21, 26-24.

Women’s singles final: Miss Martinsson beat Miss van der Aa, 21-14, 21-9. Men’s doubles final: McCarroll and B. Lockhart beat K. and D. Entwistle, 21-15, 21-11. Women’s doubles final: Miss Martinsson and Miss van der Aa beat M. Goldie (West Coast) and Miss Fisher, 16-21, 21-16, 21-19. Mixed doubles final: McCarroll and Miss van der Aa beat K. Entwistle and Miss Fisher, i 21-19, 21-13. VETERAN Men’s singles final: C. Tipper beat B. Thompson, 22-20,21-15. 1 Women’s singles final: Mrs ' May beat Mrs Evans, 18-21, 2119, 21-15. Men’s doubles final: Tipper 1 and Thompson won by default. ' Women’s doubles final: Mrs i May and Mrs Thompson beat , Mrs Evans and Miss Stead, 21- > 19, 21-19. Mixed doubles final: Tipper [ and Mrs May beat Thompson , and Mrs Thompson, 21-12, 15- i 21, 21-13. ' Second grade ; Men’s singles final: M. Price , beat P. Radley, 21-16, 21-18. Women’s singles final: K. ' Hines beat Miss Fisher, 21-16, 15-21, 21-14. Men’s doubles final: G. Hart and Price beat C. Brading and 1 S. Reid, 22-24, 21-12, 21-16. ’ Women’s doubles final: M. Millar and S. Marshall beat J. i Harper and Miss Fisher, 21-17, ! 21-14.