TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 84, 3 January 1929, Page 10

TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS

E L BARTLEET AND C E MALFROY IN MEN’S SINGLES FINAL MISSES M. SPEIRS AND M. WAKE WI LADIES’ DOUBLES COMBINED DOUBLES TO MISS M. SPEIRS ANT C. ANGAS The Dominion Tennis Tournament, which is expected to conclud on the Stanley Street courts, Auckland, to-day, will result in ne\ champions for most events. E. L. Bartleet and C. E. Malfroy having defeated (respectively) J. T. Laurenson and A. L. France will contest the final of the men’s singles. .Miss M, Speirs and Mis: M. Macfarlane will fight last year’s battle again in the final of the ladies’ singles. Bartleet and Laurenson will defend their doubles title against C. Angas and xk. L. France. _ Last year’s ladies’ doubles champions. Mrs. It. P. Adams and Miss M. Tracy, have lost their title to Misses M. Speirs and M. Wake by the same scores by which their club mates, Misses D. Nicholls and D. Howe, also lost to the ultimate champions. In the combined doubles new champions have arisen in C. Angas and Miss M. Speirs, although Miss Speirs has previously won this event when partnered by D. G. France, who did not compete this year. 11. xV. Barnett retained his title of junior boys champion; Miss M; Eliott is junior girls champion.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Auckland. January 2. The New Zealand lawn tennis championships advanced a further stage to-day when the fifth day's play took place. The weather iyas warm but somewhat windy, while a heavy shower caused a cessation of play half-way through the afternoon. The courts soon dried, however, and play was resumed after an interval of about a quarter of an hour. There was a large attendance, and great interest was taken in the various matches. Eight finals and some semi-finals were decided. Three titles were won by Canterbury (ladies’ doubles, combined doubles, and boys’ junior singles), while the honours in the junior combined duobles were shared by Canterbury players. Auckland players were successful in the girls’ junior singles and New Zealand Plate. Junior honours were well distributed, players from the following associations sharing: Auckland, Wellington. Canterbury, South Canterbury, and Otago. The men’s singles was reduced to the final. There were two verv interesting semi-finals played to-day, Bartleet and Malfroy triumphing over J. T. Laurenson and A. L. France respectively, so that the title will go either to Auckland or Wellington. Bartleet will be a strong favourite in the final. Bartleet and Laurenson are - expected to retain their men’s doubles title though France and Angas should make an interesting match of it. Bartleet Beats Laurenson. A keen contest was anticipated between Bartleet and Laurenson in the semi-final of the men’s singles, but the spectators were rather disappointed, because Bartleet was master practically throughout. Bartleet served beautifully all through, and displayed a wide variety of strokes. His placing along the sidelines was particularly clever, and it was indeed remarkable to see Laurenson returning many of these shots. Laurenson did best in the second set, his picking-up of difficult shots to the backhand, frequently earning applause. His attempts to go into the net, however, were not successful, as Bartleet left him standing with brilliqnt placements deep down the side lines. Laurenson had the lead in several games, but made many rather simple errors, which deprived him of his advantage. Both players were excellent in overhead work.,Bartleet was brilliant in tlie final set,,’in ; which his .serving was stronger than ever. Malfroy Too Good for France. Malfroy proved his superiority over France in the other semi-final. However, France ran. him right out, and Malfroy had to call up all his reserve to wm. Although Malfroy played some wonderful shots, he owed his victory in the mam to his ability to cover the whole court. Malfroy dominated the play in the last set, which he won, 6—2. He went to the net at every possible occasion, playing the ball out of France’s reach. Ladies’ Doubles Final. Long rallies characterised the final of the ladies’ doubles, in which Misses Speirs and Wake beat Mrs. Adams and Miss Tracy. It was a win for steady play, backed by good strategical work in the latter stages. Miss Speirs was the outstanding personality, playing good allround tennis, and Miss Wake played yell, but .not so steady as her partner. Mrs. Adams and Miss Tracy put up a good fight, but were unable to break through the Canterbury pair’s defence. Combined Doubles. Indifferent tennis was seen in the semi-final of the combined doubles between Miss Tracy and Malfroy and Miss Wake and Glanville. The formel - pair won after a poor exhibition. There was little of interest in the match, which was full of errors. The ladies did not ‘show the same form .which characterised their play earlier in the day in the final of the ladies’ doubles. Malfroy s display was disappointing, contrasting poorly with his play against France in the semi-final of the men’s singles. Glanville was also off colour, and did not show to advantage. . Miss Speirs and Angas disposed of Miss Myers and Lampe after an indifferent start. The Wanganui pair made a great beginning by winning the first four games. Lampe was brilliant, especially at the net, his smashes giving his opponents no chance. After the 'fourth game, however, Miss Speirs and Angas commenced to volley splendidly; while Miss Speirs served with exceptional power. Lampe went off his game towards the end of the set. Miss Speirs netted a good deal in the second set with drives and smashes, but Angas, playing at the top of his form, executed some brilliant forehand and backhand shots at the net, and he was frequently applauded for picking up drop shots. Miss Myers played her. usual steady game, driving nicely with low crosscourt shots. Matched against the erratic play of Malfroy and Miss Tracy, Angas and Miss Speirs won the final of the combined doubles championship in two sets. The win was expected, but Angas and Miss Speirs were fully extended, and a great game was witnessed. Struggling to break through the steady play of their opponents, the Wellington pair at times rose to brilliant efforts. Angas and Miss Speirs would not be denied, and slowly but surely wore the opposition down. The standard of play was high, and both pairs felt the effect of the gruelling rallies. The Canterbury players wore on top of their form and maintained a steady front, which finally gave them the match. Angas clearly showed his ahilitr in douWes nlnv. pn-l bis game was well-night faultless. Playing her usual strong, steadv game. Miss Speirs gave a great exhibition of baseline play, leaving the smashing and overhead‘work to her partner. Miss Tracy was often seen at the net. and some of her nlacings were unapproachable. Most of Malfroy’s work was excellent, but he drove and smashed wildly on occasion. Junior Events. The final of the boys’ junior singles attracted a good deal of attention. Barnett (holder of the title) was much steadier than his opponent, and this asset enabled him to retain the title. Robertson played some brilliant shots, both forehand and' backhand. Barnett made some amazing returns from shots which looked well out of reach. Tie had his opponent running about the eert a good deal by placing cleverly, then finishing the rallies -fading the bqll hopelessly beyond .

reach. Though Barnett won by the >dd . game in each set, he always looke likely winner; Misses M. Eliot and M. Howe held ths upper hand in the final of the grit’ doubles, though a temporary Itpse gave their opponent a - lead of 3 love in the second set. Miss Eliot was the strongest player <?f the four, being equally good at baselirie or net. Miss Howe was steady, bujt missed some easy shots. ' .Miss Griffith's served and drove well. Miss Hootoii was weak on the backhand. . Her opponents played to that quarter successfully. Miss Taylor had ■ an easy win I over Miss Griffiths in the ■ final of the girljs’ singles; The latter was outclassed by ' a player possessing sound all-rduml klnoW- \ ledge, of the game. ■_ ' i ' Playing fine tennis, Robertson and Drew beat Newman and Barnett in tHe final of the bovs’ doubles in strt light sets. The game was a very intereiitinS one. and all the players showed : a sufprising knowledge of the finer point s. Chiefly owing to Barnett’s .super! >rity he and Miss Hooton were successfil in the final of the junior combined: doulbles. DETAILED RESULTS By Telegraph.—Press Association.' Auckland, January Following are the detailed • results :4- i MEN’S SINGLES. . ! > Semi-finals: ,C. E. Malfroy .(Wellington beat A. L. France (Wellington). 3—B, 6M 5— 6. B—2; E. L. Bartleet (Auckland) He:] J. T. Laurenson (Waikato), 6—2, 7t—l 6— ■ r ' LADIES’ DOUBLES. ; j Final: Misses M. Speirs and M. Wait (Canterbury) beat Mrs. R. P. -Adams avl Miss M. Tracy (Wellington), 6—4, B—o. COMBINED DOUBLES. < Semi-finals: Miss M. Speirs and. 6. ■ Angas (Canterbury) beat Miss M. Myds and M. L. Lampe (Wanganui)., B—6, 6-4; Miss M. Tracy and C. E. Malfroy IWdlington) beat Miss M. Wake and D. .» Glanville (Canterbury), 6—2, 7—-5. Final: Miss M. Speirs and C. Angis (Canterbury) beat Miss M. Tracy* and E. Malfroy (Wellington), 6 —l, 7—5. BOYS’ JUNIOR SINGLES. .. Final: H. A. Barnett (Canterbury) b<at W. ' G. Robertson (South Cauterbur;), G_sl JUNIOR SINGLES. Final : Miss-Taylor (Auckland) beat Miss Griffiths (Auckland), o—l, 6—l. BOYS’ DOUBLES. Final: Robertson . (South Canterbury) and Drew (Otago) beat Newman (Nelson) ■ and Barnett (Canterbury), 6—3, 6—5. Final: .Misses M. Eliot (South Canterbury) and M. Howe (Wellington) beat Misses M. Hooton and B. Griffiths (Auckland), 6—2, 6—5. ' JUNIOR COMBINED DOUBLES. Final: Miss M. Hooton (Auckland) and H. A. Barnett (Canterbury) beat Miss R.. Taylor and Walton (Auckland), 6—l, 6—3.1 NEW ZEALAND PLATE. Final: Morrison (Auckland) beat Grifjfiths (Auckland), 6—3, 6 —2. • J WANGANUI TOURNAMENT | SECOND DAY’S RESULTS j '’ ’ | Dominion Special Service. | Wanganui, January 2. Better weather prevailed for the second ! day of the Wanganui Lawn Tennis Asso-.f ciation’s New Year tournament to-day. The > sun shone out this afternoon and this ac- .- counted for an increased attendance. Details of to-day’s play are as follow i— CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS. ' "i Men’s Singles. if W J. Melody best D. I. Robertson, 6—o, 6—3; H. P. Mortland beat C. Swan, 7—5, 3—G. 6—l; H. Cox beat Major, 6—3, 6—o; j S. Prebble beat- L. Udy, f-6, 7—5, 6—-; 4 N. Meuli beat Gibbs, 6—o, 6—2;-J. Powdrell beat C. Robertson, 6—4, 6—l, Ladles’ Singles. Miss W. Powdrell beat Miss H. FMnk-4 lin, 6—l, 4—6, 6—l: Mrs. Smith beat Miss J A. Mackay, G-O, 6-2; Miss M. Purcell | beat Mrs. Hair, 6—3, 4 —6, 6 — 2;-Mlbs M. J Latham beat Miss M. Briggs, 6—3, 6-—-. I Men’s Doubles.. I Moulder and Bourne b£at Powiiall . and* Sellar, 6—o, 6—3; Melody and Major-beat Woollams and Austin, 7—5, 7-t5; Barkman and A. E. Powdrell beat Swanger and Swanger, 6—2. 6—o; Robertson and Robertson beat Hay-Campbell and Meuli, 4 6—.2, 6—4; Jones and Jones beat Dempsey and Stodart, G— 2, G—4; McFarlane and Anderson beat Brown and - G—3; S. and J. .Powdrell beat eymoutn and Need well, 6—o, 6 —4. Ladies’ Doubles. Mrs. Smith and Miss Cox beat Miss Latham and Miss Pownall. 6—3, 6—o; Mrs. Lane and Miss Lane beat Misses Franklin arid Izard, 2—6, 6—4, 7—5; Louis and Tilley beat Mrs. and Miss Gibbs, 6—4, 6 —2. Combined Doubles. Hounsell and Miss Calver beat Dr; Christie and Miss Izard, 6—3, 6 —4. HANDICAP EVENTS. Men’s Singles. Henrichs beat Udy. 9—S: Lane beat Bourne, 9—6; Cox beat Mallett, 9—3; Hutchinson beat Lockett,- 9—l: Wilson beat Swan, 9—5; Wyllie beat Wright, 9—6; Hutton beat Spurdie, 9—3: Russell beat Bland, 9—6; Jones beat Peachey, I.adies’ Singles.. Miss Gibbs beat Miss M. Duncan, 9—5; Miss Dunlop boat Mrs. Gibbs, 9—7; Miss V. Louis beat Miss M. Pawson, 9—4; Miss E. Brown beat Mrs. New, 9—o; Mrs. Newman beat Miss J. Drew. 9—4; Miss V. Eccles beat Miss P. I.ane, 9—<; Miss T. B. Cox beat Miss G. Hmnold, 9—3: Miss H. Ecele, beat Miss C. Zeisler, 9—4; Miss K. Zeisler beat Miss G. Runnerstrum, 9—4. tadies’ Doubles. MisSes Pawson and Couper won by default from Mrs. Barkman and Miss W. , Powdrell. / ’ i