LAWN TENNIS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 88, 12 January 1928, Page 15

LAWN TENNIS

MANAWATU TOURNAMENT STEADMAN BEATS BARTLEET MISS KNIGHT DEFEATS MISS , MYERS Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, January 11. For the earlier part of the morning the weather for the third day’s play iu the Manawatu Lawn Tennis Association’s first annual championships and the Palmerston North Club’s twentyfifth annual championship and handicap tournament was far from bright, a dull overcast sky showing signs of ap-, proaching rain, which, fortunately, kept off- , i In the morning the semi-finals of the men’s championship singles and doubles were played while the afternoon was devoted to the finals. The surprise of the day was Stedman’s decisive third set defeat of Bartleet, who was only this w,eek chosen to represent New Zealand against the Frenchmen at Wellington next week. The ladies’ events are also approaching finality, but will not lie completed till to-morrow. •Stedman Outplays Bartleet As in his game with Parker yesterday, Bartleet was unable to get going in his nuftch with Stedman in the semifinal of the. men’s singles to-day until the opening game had been played. Commencing with Stedman each player won his own service io 3 all. Bartleet then had an opportunity to break through Stedman’s service, but a netted ball enabled Stedman to gain deuce and from there he won the game. Bartleet again won his service and took Stedman’s to lead 5—4. Stedman led 15—40 off Bartleet’s service in the next game, but Bartleet pulled up, winning the game and the first set 6—4. Stedman, contrary to expectations, was doing all the attacking, going right out after his shots, which often had Bartleet completely beaten. Bartleet was playing almost entirely to Stedman’s backhand which, however, was equal to the task imposed upon it. To cope with it Bartleet had to do a lo* of running from corner to corner. Stedman won the first two games in the second set, but lost his second service'to Bartleet. Stedman led 15—40 in the following game (Bartleet serving), and won, it to 30. Stedman 3, Bartleet 1. The fifth game also fell .to Stedman, who also had an opportunity of annexing the next, but a net and an out permitted Bartleet to pull the game out of the fire. Stedman 4. Bartleet 2. Bartleet gained the next game off Stedman’s service with but the loss of one stroke and camo to even toxins by taking the next oil his own. 4 all. Bartleet netted three drives and outed another to give Stedman an advantage ot one game, Stedman made Bartleet run himself out of position in the next game and took it and the set 6—4. The third set was Stedman’s from start to finish. Here again he played with his head, making Bartleet do all the hunting and playing to his weaknesses. The major portion of the final set Bartleet was playing well behind the baseline while Stedman was driving across court. Stedman's driving was deadly, and the few occasions . Bartleet enabled him to use his forehand he invariably earned the applause of the spectators. Bartleet, on occasions, ■was, lured into the net, where, though he brought off some fine smashes, he also made a lot of errors. Stedman was undoubtedly the better man on the day’s play, and in the final set Bartleet was completely outplayed. The other semi-final between Malfroy and Barkman resulted in an ea«y victory for the Wellington player, who was not extended by the veteran. The Men’s Doubles. Lampe-and Malfroy were too strong a combination for McDonald and Hooper in the eefni-final of the men’s doubles, and won 6—l. 6—o. Bartleet and Griffiths, however, were forced to play hard over twelve games by Barkman and Powdrell in the first set of the other semi-final, but tho Auckland pair took the second with but the loss of one game. Bartleet changed his racquet and was serving and playing much better than in his singles with Stedman. Both pairs took tho net whenever they were permitted to. Barkman was not playing ns well as he has -been playing, and missed a lot of easy strokes.

Miss Knight Beats Miss Myers. ' Misses Knight and Myers met in the semi-final of the Ladies’ Singles, the match going the full distance before , ’ Auckland top lady won the match. Miss Myers drove well throughout the game, but her brilliancy in this department of the game wa? counteracted by Miss Knight’s ability to return her opponent’s drives, making some fine recoveries. Miss Knight had a .greater variety of strokes than Miss Myers, but she lost a lot of strokes by netting when playing up. Miss Myers led 3—2 in the first set, but Miss Knight made up the leeway aqd a bit more by taking the next three games to lead 5—3. Miss Myers captured the next two games, the second off her opponent’s service, to love. The game was squared again at 6 all. Miss Knight took the following game alter one deuce and the next to love off Miss Myer’s service. Miss Myers led again 3—2 in the second set, and after Miss Knight had taken the next two games. Miss Myers won throe in succession to take the set. 6—4. Miss Mvers had a fine lead in the deciding set at 5—3, but she appeared to go off her game, and Miss Knight won the following four games and the match 8-6. 4-6, 7-5. The other semi-finalists, Misses Nicholls nnd Calver, will meet to-mor-row morbing.

Malfroy Beats Stedman. Malfroy and Stedman, who contested the tinal of the men’s singles, are two of the youngest players competing in the tourney. Neither is yet 19 years of age, and it is very doubtful if brighter tennis has been played by two players, of that age in the same match previously in the Dominion. Malfroy has a better variety of strokes than the Auckland boy, and Iris ability to change his tactics won him the game. Stedman’s driving against Bartleet in the morning was brilliant, but in the final, when Malfroy began to chop his' drives Stedman persistently drove into the net. Those returns of his which did clear the net generally lacked pace, and Malfroy was able to get back into position to make the return. Malfroy tried to play Stedman at his own game in the first set, but realised his error when the Auckland boy took it at 6 —3, after leading at 3-0. Malfroy was serving excellently, but Stedman had no trouble in returning, often scoring off it with brilliant drives to both sides of the court. Malfroy took the first two games in the second set, Stedman the third, and Malfroy the fourth, to lead 3—l. Malfroy’s tennis brightened considerably at this stage, while Stedman began to find the net, Malfroy taking the set--6—l. Malfroy commenced serving in the de- . ciding set, imparting more spin and speed to his .service, but failing to trouble Stedman with it. After Malfroy had taken the first game, Stedman led 10—30 in the second, but when he had worked Malfroy out of position and had an open Court, he netted a drive. Two finely placed strokes gave- Malfroy the game. Malfroy had an opportunity of taking the next game to 30, when he emulated Stedman in the previous game and netted from there. Stedman held the advantage, but lost it and the game by banging three balls in succession o”t over the baseline. Malfroy 3—o. The next game fell to Stedman. Malfroy netting on th ran occasions. A double fault and a brilliant cross court backhand drive to Malfroy’s backhand were largely responsible for Stedman breaking through Malfroy’s service and reducing

his deficiency to 3 —2. More mistakes in the next game saw him stand on even terms at 3 all. Malfroy momentarily forgot himself tn the next game and allowed Stedman to whip'in two stilt"ing forehand drives. He recovered, however, coming tn to the net. When ha held the advantage after the first tlueee he sent down a ball that Stedman was unable to return. Malfroy 4—3, SHedman netted three drives in. the subsequent game, and gave Malfroy a 5—3 lead. He fought hard for the final game, but Malfroy’s placements enabled him to bet to match point to 15, and after a long rally, he came into the net to smash deep into the court, winning the game, set, match, and championship. Malfroy was undoubtedly the better man. Stedman was totally, unable to apply himself to the game liis opponent played. Were tennis only a matter of driving, then he would have won as ho did against Bartleet, 'out against Malfroy’s. chops he was totally at sea. Malfroy and Lampe Win the Doubles.

Malfroy and Lampe were too strong for Bartleet and Griffiths in the final of the men’s dounbles. Lampe at the net was particularly deadly. Not cnee did he allow a ball whjpli he should have taken to pass liiiti. Smashing deep he hit but few balls out, and kept Bartleet and Griffiths busy defending. Griffiths brought off some marvelous returns, and in this he outshone his partner. Malfroy assisted Lairi'pe very well, his specialty being short cross-court drives, while on occasions he showed that he was no whit inferior to Lampe in overhead wprk. Malfroy took first. service, going up to Lampe immediately after serving. Three balls were hit out by them in this game, which Bartleet and Griffiths won. Bartleet followed by winfiing the next off his service, but Lampe won his service, the fourth game off Griffiths, and the fifth off Malfroy’s service, to lead 3—2. From there Bartleet and Griffiths failed to get another game, and the set ended in favour of Malfroy and Lampe, 6—2. The last games of the set were productive of several long rallies, in which Lampe and Malfroy hugged tlie net, and their opponents the baseline.

Malfroy led 40—15 in the opening game of the second set. and a service ace gave him the game. Bartleet evened the score in the second game and led after the third. In the fourth, Bartleet led 40—30, when Malfroy passed Bartleet to gain deuce. They took the game after two deuces and the score was again eVen. Malfroy’s service availed him, but little in the fifth game, his opponents taking the game. Bartleet followed by winning his service, and the Auckland pair had an advantage of two games, which was reduced to one after Lampe’s service and to nil after Griffiths’. The ninth game was a brilliant exhibition of combination on the part of Malfroy and Lampe, who took the game with but the/loss of one point. •Three times did Bartleet return Malfroy’s service to Lampe at the net to see the Wanganui man win the stroke with smashes that were impossible to return. Bartleri and Griffiths led 46—Oin tl'4 following,game, but they took it only after douce had been called. The Aucklanders also won the next game off Lampe's service, but got only one point in the twelfth ganie, making the scope six all. Lampe and Malfroy drew ahead by annexing the next,, but Bartleet caught up by capturing the next. Seven all. Malfroy made two mistakes at the net the following game, but more than made up for them later, and took the game. Lampe and Malfroy were down 6—36 on Griffiths’ service, but pulled up to deuce, and were set point when Malfroy clinched their advantage by driving in between Bartleet and Griffiths. CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS MEN’S SINGLES. Semi-finals.—Stedman defeated Bartleet, 4—6, 6—4, 6—o; Malfroy defeated Barkman, 6—l, 6—2. Final.—Malfroy defeated Stedman, 3- 6-1, 6-3. . MEN’S’ DOUBLES. Third Bound.—Powdrell and Barkman defeated Proctor and Robinson, B—6, 6-1. Semi-finals.—Bartleet and Griffiths defeated Powdrell and Barkman, 7—5, 6—l; Lampe and Malfroy defeated McDonald and Hooper, 6—-1, 6—6. Final.—Lampe and Malfroy defeated Bartleet and Griffiths, 6—2, 9—7. LADIES’ SINGLES. Semi-finals—Miss Knight defeated Miss Myers, B—6, 4 —6, 7 —5. < LADIES’ DOUBLES. Third Round.—Misses Myers and Calver defeated Misses Whyte and Cameron, 6—l, 6—4; Mrs. Hetley and Miss Snow Clark defeated Mrs. Cauldwell and Miss Rutherford, 6—2, 6—l. Semi-finals. — Misses Knight and Nicholls defeated Dr. Witherow and Miss Ramsay, 4—6, 6—2, 6—l. MIXED DOUBLES. Second Round-.—Christie ahd Miss Calver defeated Hobin and Miss Astle, 6—l, 6—2. Third Round—Plank and Miss Haggitt defeated Robertson and Miss Ma Sim, 6—6, 6—9, 6—6; Griffith and Hiss D. Haggitt defeated Swanger and Miss Woodward, 6—2, 6—2; Guy and Miss Nicholls defeated Robinson and Miss Cameron, 6—l, 6—o; Lampe and Miss Myers defeated Paul and Miss Preedy, 6—3, 6—2; Powdrell and Miss Powdrell defeated McDonald and Miss Watson, 6—4, 6—2; Dr» Christie and Miss Calver defeated Malfroy and Miss Preedy, 4- 6-3, 6-4. Fourth Round—Plank and Miss O, Haggitt won by default from Bartleet and Miss Knight; Griffiths and Miss D. Haggitt defeated Guy and Miss Nicholls, 5—7, 6—L 7—5; Lampe and Miss Myers defeated Powdrell and Miss Powdrell by default; Dr, Christie and Miss Calver defeated R. O’Brien and Miss Clark, 5—7, B—6,8 —6, 6—4 Semi-final.—Griffiths and Miss D. Haggitt defeated Plank and Miss O. Haggitt by default. HANDICAP EVENTS MEN’S SINGLES. Second Round. —B, R. O’Brien (5) defeated Marshall (5), 65—16; Barling (18) defeated Ward (12), 60—51; Knight (22) defeated Barkman (owe 5) by default; Parker (owe 8) defeated E. Robinson (14), 68—59; Stedman (scr.) defeated Charters (scr.), 60—51; Seifert (18) defeated Gosnell (16) by default. Third Round.—B. R. O'Brien (5) defeated Yates (8), 60-30; Fawcett (12) defeated Barling (18). 60—49; \ Hooper (5) defeated Knight (22), 60-50; Paul (5) defeated Levdon (20), 60—46; Plank (8) defeated Seifert (18). 60-49; Greer won by default from Powdrell; Hills (13) defeated Salmon (17). 60—52. Fourlh Round—B. R. O’Brien defeated Fawcett (12). 60 -40; Paul (5) defeated Plank (B'n 60-51; Hills (12) defeated Greer (16), 60 —45. MEN’S DOUBLES. Second Round.—Paul arid Christie (scr.) defeated Parker and Ward (owe 5), 65—50; Powdrell and Barkman won by default from Charters and Stedinnm McDonald and Hooper (owe 8) defeated Clayton and Mawhiney (16), 68—62. Third Round.—Powdrell and Barkman (owe 10) defeated Proctor and Robinson (5), 70—66; McDonald and Hooner (owe 8) defeated Longmore nnd Plank (8); 08—60; O’Brien nnd O’Brien (scr.) defeated Salmond and Salmond (12), 60—57. LADIES’ SINGLES. Second Round.—Miss Powdrell (10) defeated Miss Matheson (10), 50—40. Third Round.—Mrs. Caldwell (10) defeated Miss E. McCormick (12). 50—38; Miss Powdrell (10) defeated Miss M. Sim (12), 50-29; Miss Clark (owe 3) liefeated Miss S. Preedy (10). 53—47. Fourth Round.—Mrs. Caldwell (10) defeated Dr. Witherow (7). 50-31 I; Miss Powdrell (10) defeated Miss O. Haggitt (10), 50—35; Miss Clark (owe 3) defeated Miss K. McCormick (12), 52—45. Semi-finals—Mrs. Caldwell (10) defeated Miss Rutherford (24), 5(L—45; Miss Powdrell (10) defeated Miss Snow Clark (owe 3), 53—27. Final.—Miss Powdrell (10) defeated Mrs. Caldwell (10), 50—35.

LADIES’ DOUBLES. Semi-finals.—Misses Matheson and Stevens (12) defeated Mrs. Law and Miss Walker (5), 50—43; Misses Knight and Nicholls (owe 20) defeated Airs. Hetley and Miss Snow Clark (owe 10), 6tP=-55. MIXED DOUBLES. First Round.—Seifert and Miss Ramsay (12) won by default from Powdrqll and Miss Powdrell (5); Longmore and Miss Litchfield won by default from Charters and Miss McDonald and Miss Watson (5) defeated Parker and Miss Whyte (scr), 60—57. Second Round.—Hooper and Dr. Witherow (5) defeated Plank and Miss O. Haggitt (10), 60—48; Hills and Miss Tanner (10) defeated Robinson and Miss Cameron (15), 60—50: Hobin and Miss Astle (5) defeated Ward and Slonian (8), 60—52; Barkman and Mrs. Barkman (scr.) defeated Brown and Miss Walker (14); McDonald ami Miss Watson (5) won by default from Knight and Miss McHardy; Smith and Mrs. Hetley (scr.) defeated Seifert and Miss Seifert (20k 60-44. Third Round.-—Hooper and Dr. Witherow defeated Mnwhinney and Miss Hobson by default; Marshall and Mrs. Scott Watson (owe 3) defeated Greer and Miss Worrall (15), 63—50; Hobin and Miss Astle (5) defeated Hills and Miss Tanner (10), 60—50; Barling and Miss Hollier (25) defeated Barkman and Mrs. Barkman (scr.), 60—54. WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING. The Management Committee of the Wellington Provincial Lawn Tennis Association met last. Monday. Mr. M. E. F. Airey presided, and Messrs. M. E. Denniston, W. G. Morgan C. G. Swinburne, F. W. Reed, N. A. Foden Were also present. The secretary was instructed to communicate with the Canterbury Association and obtain confirmation of the dates suggested for tlie Anthony 'Wilding Shield Challenge and Inter-Provincial fixture. He was further instructed to write to Mr, G. Ollivier, inviting him to take part in the Provincial Championships. It was decided to commence the senior grade inter-club competition on February 4. Club captains will be responsible tor collecting and entering complete Results of matches. Four new members were elected, but it was resolved that in future membership tickets would only be issued on payment of subscription, and that resignations can now only be accepted on payment of subscription for clirrent. AUSTRALIAN DAVIS CUP TEAM FIRST THREE SELECTED. (Rec. January 11, 8.15 p.m.) Sydney, January IL The first three members of the Australian Davis Cup team have been selected, namely, G. Patterson (captain), Crawford, and Hopman.